Stadium of Canterbury



  • Wow this would annoy me.

    I think Dalziel and Minto are such pillocks anyway but to both snub the idea for a stadium would infuriate me.

    I bet @shark is chuffed to bits with this......

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/84643428/new-christchurch-stadium-on-hold-crown-waiting-on-council-to-reiterate-support



  • I'm in favour of a new stadium, but having discussed the matter with friends and acquaintances, some are violently, almost rabidly opposed to spending the money - as far as they're concerned, any major council spending is bad unless it's fixing up roads etc from the earthquake, and we should just stick with the current AMI Stadium (even though it's owned by Canterbury Rugby League, who might want it back at some point), and this is right at the top of their NOPE list.

    Also, some of those opposed are just classic examples of CAVE, and I always struggle to be civil with them. They attend meetings, join (and start) movements, and generally rage in the direction of a Council that wants to do stuff...

    Also, NIMBY, NOTE, BANANA...



  • I can understand the argument that there are probably things higher up the priority list, but a decent stadium for a city the size of Christchurch is not a "nice to have", it's a necessity.



  • @No-Quarter said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    I can understand the argument that there are probably things higher up the priority list, but a decent stadium for a city the size of Christchurch is not a "nice to have", it's a necessity.

    yeah that's my opinion too mate.,... Unfortunately I've also had the same discussion as @Godder with a few people I know.

    I also share his opinions about said people



  • @SammyC do you find that the majority you talk to share your view or not?

    I do realise the negatives are always the loudest but are you finding them to be the most populous as well?



  • It's like Dalziel and Minto have decided mid candidacy that they really don't want the job and this is the easiest way to get out of the race.

    Unless they're going to advocate for a stadium with a roof - then they're legends.



  • @Hooroo said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    @SammyC do you find that the majority you talk to share your view or not?

    I do realise the negatives are always the loudest but are you finding them to be the most populous as well?

    Good question

    Negatives are definitely the loudest.. So I find myself in discussion with them more than the others.

    I think rugby is in a pretty bad place down here and a lot of people no longer go to the stadium to watch the Crusaders.

    Probably a general feeling of apathy more than anything else, nobody cares as much as they used to. I hold 3 season tickets to Canterbury and the Crusaders, and it's a struggle to find others to go with when my regular 2 mates are out of town. Was never the case a few years ago.

    By the way, I blame Riach for that, not the new stadium. He should be doing more to involve the community (as Rennie and Smith have done superbly at the Chiefs)



  • Incredible really. Is ChCh second or third largest city?

    To not have a decent stadium beggars belief.



  • @SammyC said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    By the way, I blame Riach for that, not the new stadium. He should be doing more to involve the community (as Rennie and Smith have done superbly at the Chiefs)

    Maybe Scarlette could move south . . .



  • @Smudge why do you have Hoyte as your avatar? Such a plesant relxed picture



  • Although I'm extremely pro growth, pro the stadium, pro the spending, I can 100% understand where the locals are coming from. It'd be pretty soul destroying driving over a crappy unkempt road which needs fixing to get to the flash brand new stadium.

    However, I don't think the ability of these sorts of things to lift places should ever be underestimated. Basic infrastructure should always come before luxuries, but if the budget is there, the contractors are there, and everything is there ... then not get cracking on it?



  • @Hooroo said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    @Smudge why do you have Hoyte as your avatar? Such a plesant relxed picture

    When I changed my username, MN5 hated it as it reminded him of Jason Hoyte's character "Smudge" from Nothing Trivial. Even though Smudge was my childhood nickname, I thought I would throw in the pic of Hoyte just to make MN5 angry every time he sees my posts.



  • @Hooroo said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    Incredible really. Is ChCh second or third largest city?

    To not have a decent stadium beggars belief.

    Third. Wellington's bigger.

    I've never been to AMI Stadium but on TV it looks like the kind of stadium I'd expect from one of the smaller NPC teams. Totally understandable that they've had to use it after the earthquakes but baffling that anyone would consider that good enough moving forward for a city of Christchurch's size.



  • @MajorRage said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    Although I'm extremely pro growth, pro the stadium, pro the spending, I can 100% understand where the locals are coming from. It'd be pretty soul destroying driving over a crappy unkempt road which needs fixing to get to the flash brand new stadium.

    However, I don't think the ability of these sorts of things to lift places should ever be underestimated. Basic infrastructure should always come before luxuries, but if the budget is there, the contractors are there, and everything is there ... then not get cracking on it?

    Is it as simple as "put the money from project A to project B" though? Whenever I hear someone saying "why are they doing that, they should do this instead", that's usually the thing I find that they're completely ignoring. It's not like they can just move the stadium contractors over to work on the roads after all, they're different jobs with different budgets and different costs.



  • @Unco Yeah 100% that's right. Which is why I've just mentioned infrastructure as opposed to peoples homes etc. Maybe it's slightly differnt when it comes to people doing the work, but there would certainly be cross over in labour, and also perhaps engineers.



  • @Unco said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    @Hooroo said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    Incredible really. Is ChCh second or third largest city?

    To not have a decent stadium beggars belief.

    Third. Wellington's bigger.

    I've never been to AMI Stadium but on TV it looks like the kind of stadium I'd expect from one of the smaller NPC teams. Totally understandable that they've had to use it after the earthquakes but baffling that anyone would consider that good enough moving forward for a city of Christchurch's size.

    That's exactly what it is.



  • While it isn't adequate I do enjoy watching rugby there purely as you're close to the action like Waikato Stadium



  • I think it's that they don't want to commit the money (borrowings) when there's other stuff to spend it on still.

    Eg Insurance payout 300m for Lancaster Park, new stadium is 400m. They'd rather spend that 100m they need to borrow elsewhere at the moment, and borrow it later.
    (These numbers are made up btw)



  • @Rapido Could it be that they have already spent the insurance money received from Lancaster Park?



  • the Canterbury earthquakes highlighted how underinsured a lot of NZ were (largely still are) for both private and commercial insurances.



  • @Hooroo said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    @Rapido Could it be that they have already spent the insurance money received from Lancaster Park?

    Not that I'm aware of - full and final insurance settlement was only made in the past financial year.

    I don't believe CAVE has a majority by any stretch, but they're noisy and active. I've been following local politics more than usual this year because I've been involved in a campaign, and the councillor involved has no doubt from streetcorner meetings etc that the silent majority is in favour of big projects, as long as the streets and other repairs are still happening at a good pace. As noted, the funds come from different places than the funds for repairs, and we wouldn't get them without the anchor projects because the government won't pay otherwise, but it's very hard to convince some people of that.

    @taniwharugby - very true, and yet, we were considered overinsured by the above idiots before the earthquakes. People have underestimated the increased costs post-disaster, and also that insurers won't pay out without a lot of prodding, and you won't get the full amount and will have to negotiate as well.



  • @Godder CAVE? Canterbury Anti Vaccination Entourage??



  • @Hooroo said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    @Godder CAVE? Canterbury Anti Vaccination Entourage??

    Citizens Against Virtually Everything...

    Also, Nimby we know, but NOTE is Not Over There Either...



  • Just wondering what the status of this is? Is everything with the stadium still on hold? I guess there are still plenty of rebuild items that are higher in priority.

    Would be keen to hear any updates anyone has.





  • @Godder thanks.





  • A quicker fix would be to demand that nz finals are afternoon matches. Then get sky to work around that.

    It's not so much the weather as the time of night that puts spectators off



  • They should just play them all at the new national stadium in Auckland.



  • @Duluth knowing better, I still looked at the whining about rugby or publicly funding a stadium in the comments section.



  • @antipodean

    It reminds me of all the whining in the ODT when the Dunedin stadium was first proposed.



  • @Wally nation of whiners...well a small number whine very loud.

    People moaned about the Stadium upgrade here, has been and continues to be a great facility for us and has attracted multiple events that would never have come otherwise, people moan about something else now.





  • Is 30000, including temp seating, big enough for the major tests? What is the capacity in Wellington?



  • @Crazy-Horse There's a Bledisloe this weekend in Dunedin which is 30k. I think it could be tight for a Lions test though.



  • @KiwiMurph yeah I fogot about the game being in Dunners this weekend. Google tells me Wellington is 34500 so this proposal will be a bit smaller.





  • doesn't say anything about the $$$ they would have got for AMI stadium payout following the quakes, or has that been gobbled up already?



  • Why isn't the Dunedin Stadium design an option that Chch is looking at?

    Why are they looking at more expensive options, when Dunedin's groundbreaking design showed you don't need a retractable roof or retractable pitch. Is the dick in someone's pants not retractable? ( the architect? Or trust board?)

    This is just retarded. Why do they want retractable? What is the benefit?

    [link text](link url)
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/337798/new-report-favours-496m-christchurch-stadium

    Christchurch's new stadium could be a 25,000-seat $496m venue with a retractable pitch, according to a new report.

    An artist's impression of a new Christchurch stadium.An artist's impression of a new Christchurch stadium. Photo: Christchurch Stadium Trust
    The feasibility study by the Christchurch Stadium Trust, established to manage the stadium, details four options for a multi-use arena next to the central city.

    A blueprint for the new stadium was drawn up in 2012 as part of the earthquake recovery plan, and the original idea was to have a 35,000-seat covered arena with a retractable roof.

    But the trust's study found that option would be too expensive, and too big.

    Read the full report here (PDF, 5.8MB).

    The report instead detailed four other options with the cheapest, at $368m, catering for 25,000 people and having a roof covering up to 80 percent of the venue.

    The most expensive would have 30,000 permanent seats, a solid roof and retractable pitch, for a price tag of $584m.

    But the preferred option was a $496m stadium, which would have 25,000 permanent seats, a solid roof and retractable pitch.

    The city council has already promised a quarter of a billion dollars for the project, which would take more than five years to build.

    Construction could start at the beginning of 2019.



  • @Rapido said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    Why isn't the Dunedin Stadium design an option that Chch is looking at?

    Why are they looking at more expensive options, when Dunedin's groundbreaking design showed you don't need a retractable roof or retractable pitch. Is the dick in someone's pants not retractable? ( the architect? Or trust board?)

    This is just retarded. Why do they want retractable? What is the benefit?

    There are some answers in the articles (one of the options they were looking at was a Dunedin design)

    "The retractable pitch provides the character of an arena as opposed to a stadium, which is still the predominant mode of (Dunedin's) Forsyth Barr Stadium."

    A retractable tray would allow the turf to be moved outside to grow, exposing a concrete floor that could be used for events, concerts, and non-turf sports.

    This option would be $31m more expensive than the Forsyth-Barr-style setup, but would allow lighting and sound systems to hang from the roof, and protect the turf from damage during concerts.


Log in to reply