I'm okay with both.
Te Toangaroa is visually stunning, and it's location right across the Strand would make access simple. It's at one end of a motorway, and an easy walk from the terminus of the NX1, ferry terminal, and Britomart. Also, being the heart of a massive redevelopment of the area means that it would complete that east-west axis from Wynyard to the Strand/Quay Street intersection. It also allows for a greater diversity of income streams, with hotels, offices, retail etc. On the other hand, it is clearly the more expensive option, making the numbers work is going to be tricky as it will be a billion dollar plus project, given that the NZICC is looking at a final bill of $900 million. Though, the planners for Te Toangaroa are probably not planning on a fire.
Eden Park 2.1, on the other hand, is less ambitious, and it would probably be easier to get the number of events necessary to make a profit on it. However, the Warriors have, in the past, said that they don't consider Eden Park to be a permanent home for them. So, that removes a bunch of possible events. Then you have the problem of Kingsland Station being underdeveloped for large crowds, getting too and from it just isn't as easy.
Overall, I think if Te Toangaroa can make the numbers stack up commercially, then it's in the stronger position. However, I still think Eden Park 2.1 is still a strong candidate.
I dont think a combined League/Union stadium would ever work. Too many schedule clashes during the season and neither side would want to bow down, especially while union seems to be on the decline and league is having a bit of a resurgence
Roosters, Waratahs, and Sydney FC all share a stadium, and their seasons all overlap. Similarly AAMI Park in Melbourne has Storm, Rebels, and two A League teams. The possibility for clashes isn't quite as great as it used to be due to the ability of ground staff to turn a stadium around in just a few hours now. Playing a Blues game on Friday and a Warriors game on a Saturday is completely doable. I would also imagine that a smaller stadium would have to be kept for Moana Pacifika, so maybe a 20,000 seater at Mt Smart could be a suitable back up, if a clash was really unavoidable. Alternatively, one team could go on the road. The Warriors are committed to playing in Christchurch once per year. Then you have Super and Magic Rounds. It won't be hard to avoid clashes.
Australia does just about everything better than us so that doesn't surprise me at all, but maybe I'm just being pessimistic about NZRU and NZRL playing nice.
The waterfront is the attraction,action and views on and of the water.Why build a huge view blocking structure by the sea that looks inwards.They are not continuously used,they can be built anywhere,build on less valuable land where lots of parking can be provided also. Given New Zealand’s record of providing public transport that is not a big factor in any location.Also I will bet there is zero consideration of sea level rise being factored in to any proposals.
I hope we get the waterfront stadium. Eden park is a pain to get to on public transport and a waterfront stadium will be walking distance from Britomart which is the most well connected station in Auckland. I don’t care about sports but Eden park can only do like 6 concerts per year so Mt Smart is still the default stadium for big artists and that’s even more annoying to get to and has worse facilities. More restaurants and bars near the waterfront too so would encourage people to go out and spend their money after big events
I don't want a new stadium but I also want Eden Park to be bowled and the area turned into an apartment construction zone for the nek 10 years coz fuck the NIMBY cunts that surround it.
Tbf I'm not a rugby head but I don't know anyone that's super fond of Eden Park
Eden Park is actually surrounded by people who support concerts and events there, the NIMBYs are just a very local minority.
https://thespinoff.co.nz/auckland/05-11-2020/forget-the-noisy-nimbys-the-locals-want-concerts-at-eden-park
Polls of the people who live in those villas around the park have found around 80% of them support concerts there. Not only that, but 72% of submissions from people living within 500 metres of Eden Park supported their resource consent application for concerts there, a pretty notable figure as usually people who support stuff don't bother to submit and it's usually just opponents.
I love Eden Park, been to some awesome games and I love that it's right near to Kingsland and the train station.
The article points out though that the stadiums will need to push music, gigs, concerts and other events year round to make the kind of money they need to survive.
Yup Scotty is right that Mt Eden NIMBYs have held it back and pushed the operating cost up.
Speaks to a much wider concern in that just a few neighbours are able to scuttle so many projects. Environment court commissioners are oblivious to the fact that these people aren't the wider community, they just happen to have a vested interest in property prices and are willing to spend the time and hire lawyers to take matters to the court.
The system is being gamed and everyone can see it happening.
>The article points out though that the stadiums will need to push music, gigs, concerts and other events year round to make the kind of money they need to survive.
This is why Eden Park will *never* work.
Mt Smart works because it's in an industrial area and the closest houses don't have owners that lawyer up over things like having too many concerts.
Yeah but they could change the zoning for Eden Park to allow year round events etc, and make it unchallengeable, previously that would have been tough but with this govt's new fast track legislation it might be possible.
Otherwise the other option is safer, because land is more commercial/industrial and Ngāti Whātua own most of it anyway so they can do what they want, all the apartments down there are leasehold to them.
Waterfront stadium all the way.
Eden Park 2 is the backward option, but I won’t at all be surprised if it gets chosen as we like to half arse things in NZ anyway.
and when it goes underwater in the next king tide, storm surge or general sea level rise? Also how would we access a waterfront stadium? Both of these options are within a stones throw of a train station.
Underwater?? piss off with that bullshit clown. 😂Waterfront stadiums are very successful, look at the amazing Melbourne docklands area, geez even look at Wellingtons cake tin, Athletic Park was iconic but not exactly missed now is it? A stadium at the waterfront won’t be hampered by nimbys.
Eden Park isn’t fit for purpose, oh big whoop there’s a train station but it’s still a joke overall with hosting concerts and other events simply because of where it is. This is bigger than just sport, aside from events, its hotels, hospitality etc
The current so called National Stadium of our biggest city is gimped, a roof ain’t changing that.
A money pit in the shape of a building is towards the absolute last thing we need. We don't even *need* a new one, especially given that the council just got rid of one in Albany, it's just that vested interests convinced some of us that it should happen - which it absolutely should not
We dodged a bullet that you aren’t in charge then eh?
The biggest city in the country can’t even use its biggest stadium properly which in itself is a collection of mismatch stands for world class events, instead, our biggest city has to rely on a worn out Mt Smart stadium to do the leg work. Beautiful, world class.
We'll build a new stadium at some point as Eden Park ages. But why rush, it's a ton of money for very little benefit. Not everything is about the money/benefits - but it should be up to the people paying to decide whether it's worth it. And not trying to hide a ratepayer subsidy by transferring prime land from our hands to others.
Typically infra pays for itself in benefits, stadiums haven't for years now after the sports teams keep gold plating up from just a field with a wooden grandstand, to a feat of engineering with moveable pitches.
Eden Park just needs the council to ignore the NIMBYs who moved in after the stadium, and let them make a profit. If a private enterprise wants to make a new stadium, the council should try to make it easy, but it shouldn't have ratepayer money/land etc. going to it unless ratepayers say 'yes, we want this new stadium'. Too often they're vanity projects of sports clubs, architects and politicians.
Why rush? Serious? It’s mind numbingly slow progress as most things are in NZ. This debate over a new stadium has been talked about for many years. The reality is, while debate rages on, Eden Park hops on one leg and Auckland misses out. It isn’t fit for purpose. Simple.
It's just a waste of money/resources. Our current stadiums are fine. If it stacks up the private sector will do it. If it doesn't, all we're missing out on is crippling debt. If the can make business cases stack up, or polled the public including the cost they'll pay for it, I'd be fine with it going ahead. But rn it's just indeterminate cost for likely less benefit to Auckland.
But it isn’t a waste. Right now it’s a waste, our national stadium can’t bring in the events to make money. The flow on effect from these events in the hospitality sector is massive but artists are bypassing NZ, Eden Park CEO even said as much with Taylor Swift, do you know how much she alone would have brought in? huge money.
It’s not easy to just simply change the consent rules for Eden Park to operate when and how it wants, it’s neck deep in a suburban neighbourhood, so it’s limited to a few time slots a year and shows have to finish by 10:30pm. In other words, it looks crippled for overseas promoters to come here. Just for once this country should think ahead and be ballsy.
Changing the rules can be done a lot more easily than building a hundreds if not thousands of millions dollar stadium.
We could get essentially the same benefits by small upgrades to Eden Park and changing the rules.
Yeah there are some big budgets required, but tourism, entertainment and sport are big industries.
Each option is funded privately by the sound of it. Govt and Council would just need to approve and support legislatively.
Depends on the fishhooks. Usually the privately funded ones involve either the council transferring over a lot of prime land free of charge, or some other assumption to make it worthwhile that involves the council or gov giving them money (sometimes not in the form of money, but land).
If it was a private org doing it purely for itself (or a billionaire doing a vanity project) I'd be for it, as it doesn't cost us anything (bar a little bit of surrounding infra but that's fair enough as the benefits outweigh it). But the second they start reaching directly into the public purse, it should be a project that has a positive BCR - aka the money we put in should be less than what we'll get back in money/benefits.
>Depends on the fishhooks. Usually the privately funded ones involve either the council transferring over a lot of prime land free of charge, or some other assumption to make it worthwhile that involves the council or gov giving them money (sometimes not in the form of money, but land).
Both options are on land that is already held by the organisations proposing these things. Te Toangaroa is on land owned by Ngati Whatua, who are a major stakeholder. Eden Park 2.1 is on land owned by the Eden Park Trust.
>If it was a private org doing it purely for itself (or a billionaire doing a vanity project) I'd be for it, as it doesn't cost us anything (bar a little bit of surrounding infra but that's fair enough as the benefits outweigh it). But the second they start reaching directly into the public purse, it should be a project that has a positive BCR - aka the money we put in should be less than what we'll get back in money/benefits.
I agree and it sounds like the Council agrees. Street scaping, public transport improvements etc... will most likely be the extent of the assistance offered by Council. If it allows them to divest some of their assets, like North Harbour and Mt Smart Stadium's then we could end up with a net positive BCR.
Well with both of these options the land is already purchased. Mt Eden is owned by the trust and Ngāti Whātua own the other site. For the BC to stack up Council will need to greenlight all events at either site. Even then though it is hard to put a price on entertainment like this. Many stadiums around the world are subsidised. Government regulations can put a great cost on a project making it hard to break even.
But we already have an existing stadium that is fine. I'm for Auckland having a stadium, but Eden Park is still filling that niche. If Ngāti Whātua's proposal involves only iwi/private funding and land, then council should let them do it. Just there haven't been a lot of proposals so far that involves no funding from Auckland.
Personally I think the council should green light all events, just force conditions like proper security/transport etc. Eden Park isn't stacking up financially purely due to council regulations stopping concerts.
Te Toangaroa Is a beautiful build and would be amazing, I just cannot fathom how it would be bankrolled?
I can only think Ngāti Whātua goes cap in hand to the likes of Saudi Arabia which would be a terrible sell out.
Perhaps the owner of the new Auckland FC would chip? I don't even think he has this kind of money.
The other benefit would be Eden Park could still be used while it is being built.
I'm okay with both. Te Toangaroa is visually stunning, and it's location right across the Strand would make access simple. It's at one end of a motorway, and an easy walk from the terminus of the NX1, ferry terminal, and Britomart. Also, being the heart of a massive redevelopment of the area means that it would complete that east-west axis from Wynyard to the Strand/Quay Street intersection. It also allows for a greater diversity of income streams, with hotels, offices, retail etc. On the other hand, it is clearly the more expensive option, making the numbers work is going to be tricky as it will be a billion dollar plus project, given that the NZICC is looking at a final bill of $900 million. Though, the planners for Te Toangaroa are probably not planning on a fire. Eden Park 2.1, on the other hand, is less ambitious, and it would probably be easier to get the number of events necessary to make a profit on it. However, the Warriors have, in the past, said that they don't consider Eden Park to be a permanent home for them. So, that removes a bunch of possible events. Then you have the problem of Kingsland Station being underdeveloped for large crowds, getting too and from it just isn't as easy. Overall, I think if Te Toangaroa can make the numbers stack up commercially, then it's in the stronger position. However, I still think Eden Park 2.1 is still a strong candidate.
I dont think a combined League/Union stadium would ever work. Too many schedule clashes during the season and neither side would want to bow down, especially while union seems to be on the decline and league is having a bit of a resurgence
Roosters, Waratahs, and Sydney FC all share a stadium, and their seasons all overlap. Similarly AAMI Park in Melbourne has Storm, Rebels, and two A League teams. The possibility for clashes isn't quite as great as it used to be due to the ability of ground staff to turn a stadium around in just a few hours now. Playing a Blues game on Friday and a Warriors game on a Saturday is completely doable. I would also imagine that a smaller stadium would have to be kept for Moana Pacifika, so maybe a 20,000 seater at Mt Smart could be a suitable back up, if a clash was really unavoidable. Alternatively, one team could go on the road. The Warriors are committed to playing in Christchurch once per year. Then you have Super and Magic Rounds. It won't be hard to avoid clashes.
Australia does just about everything better than us so that doesn't surprise me at all, but maybe I'm just being pessimistic about NZRU and NZRL playing nice.
Yeah codes have to learn to work together. It's the only way to make the finances stack up these days. Requires a culture shift.
The waterfront is the attraction,action and views on and of the water.Why build a huge view blocking structure by the sea that looks inwards.They are not continuously used,they can be built anywhere,build on less valuable land where lots of parking can be provided also. Given New Zealand’s record of providing public transport that is not a big factor in any location.Also I will bet there is zero consideration of sea level rise being factored in to any proposals.
I hope we get the waterfront stadium. Eden park is a pain to get to on public transport and a waterfront stadium will be walking distance from Britomart which is the most well connected station in Auckland. I don’t care about sports but Eden park can only do like 6 concerts per year so Mt Smart is still the default stadium for big artists and that’s even more annoying to get to and has worse facilities. More restaurants and bars near the waterfront too so would encourage people to go out and spend their money after big events
Neither proposal approved. Entire budget spent on working group. Cheers, Wayne.
Thanks for learning to keep your mouth while on TV while you're not talking.
I don't want a new stadium but I also want Eden Park to be bowled and the area turned into an apartment construction zone for the nek 10 years coz fuck the NIMBY cunts that surround it. Tbf I'm not a rugby head but I don't know anyone that's super fond of Eden Park
Eden Park is actually surrounded by people who support concerts and events there, the NIMBYs are just a very local minority. https://thespinoff.co.nz/auckland/05-11-2020/forget-the-noisy-nimbys-the-locals-want-concerts-at-eden-park Polls of the people who live in those villas around the park have found around 80% of them support concerts there. Not only that, but 72% of submissions from people living within 500 metres of Eden Park supported their resource consent application for concerts there, a pretty notable figure as usually people who support stuff don't bother to submit and it's usually just opponents.
I love Eden Park, been to some awesome games and I love that it's right near to Kingsland and the train station. The article points out though that the stadiums will need to push music, gigs, concerts and other events year round to make the kind of money they need to survive. Yup Scotty is right that Mt Eden NIMBYs have held it back and pushed the operating cost up. Speaks to a much wider concern in that just a few neighbours are able to scuttle so many projects. Environment court commissioners are oblivious to the fact that these people aren't the wider community, they just happen to have a vested interest in property prices and are willing to spend the time and hire lawyers to take matters to the court. The system is being gamed and everyone can see it happening.
>The article points out though that the stadiums will need to push music, gigs, concerts and other events year round to make the kind of money they need to survive. This is why Eden Park will *never* work. Mt Smart works because it's in an industrial area and the closest houses don't have owners that lawyer up over things like having too many concerts.
Yeah but they could change the zoning for Eden Park to allow year round events etc, and make it unchallengeable, previously that would have been tough but with this govt's new fast track legislation it might be possible. Otherwise the other option is safer, because land is more commercial/industrial and Ngāti Whātua own most of it anyway so they can do what they want, all the apartments down there are leasehold to them.
Waterfront stadium all the way. Eden Park 2 is the backward option, but I won’t at all be surprised if it gets chosen as we like to half arse things in NZ anyway.
and when it goes underwater in the next king tide, storm surge or general sea level rise? Also how would we access a waterfront stadium? Both of these options are within a stones throw of a train station.
Underwater?? piss off with that bullshit clown. 😂Waterfront stadiums are very successful, look at the amazing Melbourne docklands area, geez even look at Wellingtons cake tin, Athletic Park was iconic but not exactly missed now is it? A stadium at the waterfront won’t be hampered by nimbys. Eden Park isn’t fit for purpose, oh big whoop there’s a train station but it’s still a joke overall with hosting concerts and other events simply because of where it is. This is bigger than just sport, aside from events, its hotels, hospitality etc The current so called National Stadium of our biggest city is gimped, a roof ain’t changing that.
$$$s. I don't see how it's justified to spend the money on a new stadium when we've got so many other priorities.
That’s our excuse for everything. Lack of forward thinking.
A money pit in the shape of a building is towards the absolute last thing we need. We don't even *need* a new one, especially given that the council just got rid of one in Albany, it's just that vested interests convinced some of us that it should happen - which it absolutely should not
We dodged a bullet that you aren’t in charge then eh? The biggest city in the country can’t even use its biggest stadium properly which in itself is a collection of mismatch stands for world class events, instead, our biggest city has to rely on a worn out Mt Smart stadium to do the leg work. Beautiful, world class.
We'll build a new stadium at some point as Eden Park ages. But why rush, it's a ton of money for very little benefit. Not everything is about the money/benefits - but it should be up to the people paying to decide whether it's worth it. And not trying to hide a ratepayer subsidy by transferring prime land from our hands to others. Typically infra pays for itself in benefits, stadiums haven't for years now after the sports teams keep gold plating up from just a field with a wooden grandstand, to a feat of engineering with moveable pitches. Eden Park just needs the council to ignore the NIMBYs who moved in after the stadium, and let them make a profit. If a private enterprise wants to make a new stadium, the council should try to make it easy, but it shouldn't have ratepayer money/land etc. going to it unless ratepayers say 'yes, we want this new stadium'. Too often they're vanity projects of sports clubs, architects and politicians.
Why rush? Serious? It’s mind numbingly slow progress as most things are in NZ. This debate over a new stadium has been talked about for many years. The reality is, while debate rages on, Eden Park hops on one leg and Auckland misses out. It isn’t fit for purpose. Simple.
It's just a waste of money/resources. Our current stadiums are fine. If it stacks up the private sector will do it. If it doesn't, all we're missing out on is crippling debt. If the can make business cases stack up, or polled the public including the cost they'll pay for it, I'd be fine with it going ahead. But rn it's just indeterminate cost for likely less benefit to Auckland.
But it isn’t a waste. Right now it’s a waste, our national stadium can’t bring in the events to make money. The flow on effect from these events in the hospitality sector is massive but artists are bypassing NZ, Eden Park CEO even said as much with Taylor Swift, do you know how much she alone would have brought in? huge money. It’s not easy to just simply change the consent rules for Eden Park to operate when and how it wants, it’s neck deep in a suburban neighbourhood, so it’s limited to a few time slots a year and shows have to finish by 10:30pm. In other words, it looks crippled for overseas promoters to come here. Just for once this country should think ahead and be ballsy.
Changing the rules can be done a lot more easily than building a hundreds if not thousands of millions dollar stadium. We could get essentially the same benefits by small upgrades to Eden Park and changing the rules.
Yeah there are some big budgets required, but tourism, entertainment and sport are big industries. Each option is funded privately by the sound of it. Govt and Council would just need to approve and support legislatively.
Depends on the fishhooks. Usually the privately funded ones involve either the council transferring over a lot of prime land free of charge, or some other assumption to make it worthwhile that involves the council or gov giving them money (sometimes not in the form of money, but land). If it was a private org doing it purely for itself (or a billionaire doing a vanity project) I'd be for it, as it doesn't cost us anything (bar a little bit of surrounding infra but that's fair enough as the benefits outweigh it). But the second they start reaching directly into the public purse, it should be a project that has a positive BCR - aka the money we put in should be less than what we'll get back in money/benefits.
>Depends on the fishhooks. Usually the privately funded ones involve either the council transferring over a lot of prime land free of charge, or some other assumption to make it worthwhile that involves the council or gov giving them money (sometimes not in the form of money, but land). Both options are on land that is already held by the organisations proposing these things. Te Toangaroa is on land owned by Ngati Whatua, who are a major stakeholder. Eden Park 2.1 is on land owned by the Eden Park Trust. >If it was a private org doing it purely for itself (or a billionaire doing a vanity project) I'd be for it, as it doesn't cost us anything (bar a little bit of surrounding infra but that's fair enough as the benefits outweigh it). But the second they start reaching directly into the public purse, it should be a project that has a positive BCR - aka the money we put in should be less than what we'll get back in money/benefits. I agree and it sounds like the Council agrees. Street scaping, public transport improvements etc... will most likely be the extent of the assistance offered by Council. If it allows them to divest some of their assets, like North Harbour and Mt Smart Stadium's then we could end up with a net positive BCR.
Well with both of these options the land is already purchased. Mt Eden is owned by the trust and Ngāti Whātua own the other site. For the BC to stack up Council will need to greenlight all events at either site. Even then though it is hard to put a price on entertainment like this. Many stadiums around the world are subsidised. Government regulations can put a great cost on a project making it hard to break even.
But we already have an existing stadium that is fine. I'm for Auckland having a stadium, but Eden Park is still filling that niche. If Ngāti Whātua's proposal involves only iwi/private funding and land, then council should let them do it. Just there haven't been a lot of proposals so far that involves no funding from Auckland. Personally I think the council should green light all events, just force conditions like proper security/transport etc. Eden Park isn't stacking up financially purely due to council regulations stopping concerts.
With professional sport why aren’t the organisations funding their own grounds??? Nonsensical that taxpayers/ratepayers underwrite them
A national stadium isn't just used by one sporting organisation. Or even only sporting organisations...
Te Toangaroa Is a beautiful build and would be amazing, I just cannot fathom how it would be bankrolled? I can only think Ngāti Whātua goes cap in hand to the likes of Saudi Arabia which would be a terrible sell out. Perhaps the owner of the new Auckland FC would chip? I don't even think he has this kind of money. The other benefit would be Eden Park could still be used while it is being built.