Stadium of Canterbury



  • @mofitzy_ said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    Just noticed the successful womens world cup 2023 bid (joint Aus/NZ) in includes:

    "Christchurch Stadium, capacity: 22,556"

    So it will be completed by 2023? Or will they just put up additional stands at Rugby League Park?

    It's embarrassing that Christchurch Stadium is being used. I don't want it seen as the face of my city on such a large international stage.

    This is exactly the kind of event we should be able to capitalise on. If we had a great new 40,000 seat open air stadium by 2023 we'd get bigger games, more cashed-up international visitors etc.

    Fucking short-sighted councillors and politicians who just want to pander to fucking Ed Sheeran fans.



  • @shark I repeat earlier comments - the roof was requested by Canterbury Rugby who will be the main tenant. Also, if we were pandering to Ed Sheeran fans, it would be 40,000 capacity since we could sell that out for Ed.



  • Yeah and CHCH was not doing so great even selling out for ABs tests, so a huge stadium might not be the best idea!

    Only Italy but still. Also these two "Before reconstruction, Christchurch failed to reach its 36,000 capacity for Tri-Nations tests against South Africa in 2007 and Australia the year before." pretty shit effort by the Cantabs etc

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/2517802/Poor-ticket-sales-threaten-Christchurch-tests



  • @Godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    @shark I repeat earlier comments - the roof was requested by Canterbury Rugby who will be the main tenant. Also, if we were pandering to Ed Sheeran fans, it would be 40,000 capacity since we could sell that out for Ed.

    So you think Canterbury Rugby's desires should be the ultimate consideration? Put before issues like future proofing, the standard of roofed stadia etc? No way they should. OF COURSE the Crusaders and Canterbury would want a roof and 20k to 25k seats as it suits their needs.

    40,000 with a roof isn't/wasn't an option for $475m.



  • @shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    @Godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    @shark I repeat earlier comments - the roof was requested by Canterbury Rugby who will be the main tenant. Also, if we were pandering to Ed Sheeran fans, it would be 40,000 capacity since we could sell that out for Ed.

    So you think Canterbury Rugby's desires should be the ultimate consideration? Put before issues like future proofing, the standard of roofed stadia etc? No way they should. OF COURSE the Crusaders and Canterbury would want a roof and 20k to 25k seats as it suits their needs.

    40,000 with a roof isn't/wasn't an option for $475m.

    Yes, because otherwise they may not use it, and it becomes even more of a white elephant.



  • @shark so let me get this straight, you don’t think they should do what Canterbury rugby want or concert promoters or the vast majority of the people in Christchurch ie have a roof...even though they would use it 90% of the time? And we should build a huge stadium that will only be full 3 or 4 times every 12 years just because “chRiStcHurCh iS biG”



  • @Godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    @shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    @Godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    @shark I repeat earlier comments - the roof was requested by Canterbury Rugby who will be the main tenant. Also, if we were pandering to Ed Sheeran fans, it would be 40,000 capacity since we could sell that out for Ed.

    So you think Canterbury Rugby's desires should be the ultimate consideration? Put before issues like future proofing, the standard of roofed stadia etc? No way they should. OF COURSE the Crusaders and Canterbury would want a roof and 20k to 25k seats as it suits their needs.

    40,000 with a roof isn't/wasn't an option for $475m.

    Yes, because otherwise they may not use it, and it becomes even more of a white elephant.

    They'll use whatever gets built.



  • @Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    @shark so let me get this straight, you don’t think they should do what Canterbury rugby want or concert promoters ie have a roof...even though they would use it 90% of the time? And we should build a huge stadium that will only be full 3 or 4 times every 12 years just because “chRiStcHurCh iS biG”

    You're kind of onto it, but not quite getting it.

    $475m isn't enough to build a well equipped, roofed stadium with any sort of interesting design that can seat up to 30,000. Or do you think it is? Because you've already been proven wrong given a second tier concourse has already been removed to save cost.

    With the possibility of a quality indoor stadium seating up to 30,000 removed, and it has been, the options are a) shrink the capacity even further b) maintain 30k capacity but build an even more basic design or c) build an open stadium which for the same money could seat 40,000 if required (for, let's say, a FIFA women's World Cup) and have many of the features expected of a modern stadium (deep covered stands, enclosed concourses across multiple levels, numerous concession windows, entertainment attached, great screens etc etc). A larger stadium doesn't need to be used in its entirety for a rugby game so the cost of opening it right up isn't a valid issue, but capacity is there if and when needed.

    The obsession with a roof at all costs is mind boggling.



  • Further, it's not at all outside the realm of possibility now that Australia and NZ could host a FIFA World Cup, or New Zealand another RWC. How many of those games will a crappy 25,000 seat MUA get?



  • @shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    Further, it's not at all outside the realm of possibility now that Australia and NZ could host a FIFA World Cup, or New Zealand another RWC. How many of those games will a crappy 25,000 seat MUA get?

    Nz is tiny on the world stage, if Aus got a football World Cup auckland would be the only city to get any slightly big games, any other stadiums would only get Minows so a 30k stadium would be fine

    But we’re not going to get fifa world cups...so we should build something that might get close to breaking even each year...so concerts and rugby

    Actually, the fifa World Cup is held in our winter...so a roof would probably make it more attractive seeing we wouldn’t fill the stand from local support and so would have to rely even more heavily on tourists



  • @Kiwiwomble If we had a 40k stadium we would get games, should that possibility come to fruition. Keep in mind a bunch of the Australian stadiums aren't rectangular field grounds which counts against them. They've got five or six which stand out as being suitable for a FIFA men's WC. A 30k stadium would only attract minnow games inc any future RWC held here. And if it was a FIFA men's WC, there wouldn't be ANY issue attracting fans from all around the globe.



  • I get what Shark is saying. If Christchurch goes this route then when the Lions tour in 2029 it will be two tests in Auckland and one in Wellington. Again. If we host another Rugby World Cup, they won't get a KO game. They will get Rugby Championship tests but are more likely to get Argentina or a 3rd Bledisloe than Australia or South Africa.

    I think on balance he is wrong. The smaller stadium with a roof won't attract more events to Christchurch but those events are few and far between anyway. It will be a better experience for 95% of events and that should be the consideration.



  • @hydro11 said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    I get what Shark is saying. If Christchurch goes this route then when the Lions tour in 2029 it will be two tests in Auckland and one in Wellington. Again. If we host another Rugby World Cup, they won't get a KO game. They will get Rugby Championship tests but are more likely to get Argentina or a 3rd Bledisloe than Australia or South Africa.

    I think on balance he is wrong. The smaller stadium with a roof won't attract more events to Christchurch but those events are few and far between anyway. It will be a better experience for 95% of events and that should be the consideration.

    I'm not wrong. It's fucking simple. The budget is shrinking, costs are rising and the project has already downsized in spec. It'll be downsized and/or down spec'd again.

    It's easy for those outside the region especially, to look at the situation and think the Canterbury public should accept what's being offered up. And unfortunately the vast majority of the local populous simply assume they're going to get a great facility and never miss out on a great event. But for $475m you simply can't have both.



  • @shark

    As local tax payer, I think you're wrong.

    Even though I live overseas, I own land in Canterbury - driving distance from the stadium - and will definitely go to games in a roofed stadium.

    In a freezing massive regular assed stadium where there is a good chance that half the seats are miles away from the action? Not so much.

    The limited size of Christchurch is what makes it nice, and is why we chose it. But it won't get a Lions test.



  • @gt12 said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    @shark

    As local tax payer, I think you're wrong.

    Even though I live overseas, I own land in Canterbury - driving distance from the stadium - and will definitely go to games in a roofed stadium.

    In a freezing massive regular assed stadium where there is a good chance that half the seats are miles away from the action? Not so much.

    The limited size of Christchurch is what makes it nice, and is why we chose it. But it won't get a Lions test.

    Roof or no roof, it's a rectangular stadium so you're off the mark re seating being worse if there isn't a roof. And freezing? Do you think being in a large plastic box will prevent the crowd from being cold if it's 2 degrees? Nooooo. It'll keep the rain off whilst seated, but the way the design is going you'll probably get soaked as soon as you go for a beer and chips.



  • @shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    And freezing? Do you think being in a large plastic box will prevent the crowd from being cold if it's 2 degrees?

    Actually, yes. Have you been to Dunedin? The stadium heats up with a few thousand people inside - about a hundred watts a person, so every 10k is like 500 fan heaters on full bore. It won't be 2 degrees inside, and the rugby will be fantastic - dry balls, etc.

    That said, it's a massive amount of money for a stadium. Stadium economics don't make sense, so spend what you need to get a decent venue --but as you say, it's a tradeoff between a roof and big events with the current budget.



  • @shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    Do you think being in a large plastic box will prevent the crowd from being cold if it's 2 degrees?

    Throw in a 40kt southerly at 2 degrees and a roof is really quite a good idea, especially as the event will be better. Cancelling concerts due to weather and watching rugby teams struggle with the conditions isn't that appealing.

    Agree about the concourse and design though. It should be an attractive design (that doesn't cost much) and you should be able to get beer and chips without getting wet.



  • I've been staying out of the @shark v everyone else but after that 80 minutes I'm fully backing the roof option.



  • I was at the game yesterday. Rugby is a winter sport and adverse conditions are a part of that.

    Having been wet the whole time, to varying degrees, I believe even more that the genuine need is for a state of the art open stadium with extended stand roofing.



  • @nzzp said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    @shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    And freezing? Do you think being in a large plastic box will prevent the crowd from being cold if it's 2 degrees?

    Actually, yes. Have you been to Dunedin? The stadium heats up with a few thousand people inside - about a hundred watts a person, so every 10k is like 500 fan heaters on full bore. It won't be 2 degrees inside, and the rugby will be fantastic - dry balls, etc.

    That said, it's a massive amount of money for a stadium. Stadium economics don't make sense, so spend what you need to get a decent venue --but as you say, it's a tradeoff between a roof and big events with the current budget.

    I've been to several games at FBS, and a couple of those were on really cold nights. It was only marginally warmer inside.





  • @Stargazer
    If FIFA funds it then why not but it will be a completely useless upgrade if the stadium is finished the next year.



  • I don't want international visitors having to suffer that dump.



  • minor upgrades should be fine, Football are more likely to be day games which makes the experience much more enjoyable, i went to a few games during the Fifa u-20 world cup and it was nice on a sunny day

    It's highly unlikely a new stadium could be completed for it, or at least to any respectable standard, best to go with this seeing as everyone will know the history of why its there than to try and fail to do a new one



  • I'd be astonished if FIFA gave a shit about hosting matches in Christchurch to the point of agreeing to pay for upgrades to infrastructure when you could just schedule them elsewhere.



  • @Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    Football are more likely to be day games which makes the experience much more enjoyable

    Those are the upgrades that need to be paid for.

    Upgrade the lighting and have back up power. You're good at this ferning - never read the article.



  • @Snowy said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    @Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    Football are more likely to be day games which makes the experience much more enjoyable

    Those are the upgrades that need to be paid for.

    Upgrade the lighting and have back up power. You're good at this ferning - never read the article.

    apologies, assumed it would be similar to the U-20 world cup where most games were during the day

    Either way, they won the bid with this listed as one of the venues so there shouldn't be surprises for anyone



  • @Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    @Snowy said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    @Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    Football are more likely to be day games which makes the experience much more enjoyable

    Those are the upgrades that need to be paid for.

    Upgrade the lighting and have back up power. You're good at this ferning - never read the article.

    apologies, assumed it would be similar to the U-20 world cup where most games were during the day

    Rule one - never read the article.
    Rule two of fight club ferning never apologise.



  • @antipodean said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    I'd be astonished if FIFA gave a shit about hosting matches in Christchurch to the point of agreeing to pay for upgrades to infrastructure when you could just schedule them elsewhere.

    Yep. I agree. Who's the news hound who's come up with the idea of a FIFA-funded upgrade? There would be 20 stadiums better than this dump in Australasia.



  • Fifa does grants like this, just like UEFA gives them for teams that make it into Europe for the first time or the FA gives them to teams as they come up through the football leagues in England



  • Waste of money, on this dump.



  • @shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    Waste of money, on this dump.

    not if the alternative is Chch missing out of hosting games, the end goal for any of this or the new stadium isn't the stadium....its what it brings to the city, either events for people to enjoy or boosts to the economy



  • @shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    Waste of money, on this dump.

    You'd hopefully be able to salvage the new light bulbs! 🙂



  • @Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    @shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    Waste of money, on this dump.

    not if the alternative is Chch missing out of hosting games, the end goal for any of this or the new stadium isn't the stadium....its what it brings to the city, either events for people to enjoy or boosts to the economy

    It'd be a great look: Christchurch, a city largely rebuilt 12 years after a series of 'quakes, and the image - the shop window - we offer to the largest global audience any event here has ever had, is of that absolute shitbox. Sure, we'd get a couple of crowds of maybe 20k but what damage is done to future tourism in the process? No thank you.



  • @shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    @Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    @shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    Waste of money, on this dump.

    not if the alternative is Chch missing out of hosting games, the end goal for any of this or the new stadium isn't the stadium....its what it brings to the city, either events for people to enjoy or boosts to the economy

    It'd be a great look: Christchurch, a city largely rebuilt 12 years after a series of 'quakes, and the image - the shop window - we offer to the largest global audience any event here has ever had, is of that absolute shitbox. Sure, we'd get a couple of crowds of maybe 20k but what damage is done to future tourism in the process? No thank you.

    How many cities have your bypassed because you once saw a rubbish stadium on the telly? I think you're far too emotional around this to have a clear thought process.



  • @Hooroo said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    @shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    @Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    @shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    Waste of money, on this dump.

    not if the alternative is Chch missing out of hosting games, the end goal for any of this or the new stadium isn't the stadium....its what it brings to the city, either events for people to enjoy or boosts to the economy

    It'd be a great look: Christchurch, a city largely rebuilt 12 years after a series of 'quakes, and the image - the shop window - we offer to the largest global audience any event here has ever had, is of that absolute shitbox. Sure, we'd get a couple of crowds of maybe 20k but what damage is done to future tourism in the process? No thank you.

    How many cities have your bypassed because you once saw a rubbish stadium on the telly? I think you're far too emotional around this to have a clear thought process.

    People travel to cities because of iconic buildings and landmarks. I went to Dallas last year largely because of a cool stadium which was the shop window. And I can tell you the city itself - aside from a neighbourhood called Deep Ellum - is a bit of a bore. You don't think the inverse can be the case?



  • @Hooroo said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    @shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    @Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    @shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    Waste of money, on this dump.

    not if the alternative is Chch missing out of hosting games, the end goal for any of this or the new stadium isn't the stadium....its what it brings to the city, either events for people to enjoy or boosts to the economy

    It'd be a great look: Christchurch, a city largely rebuilt 12 years after a series of 'quakes, and the image - the shop window - we offer to the largest global audience any event here has ever had, is of that absolute shitbox. Sure, we'd get a couple of crowds of maybe 20k but what damage is done to future tourism in the process? No thank you.

    How many cities have your bypassed because you once saw a rubbish stadium on the telly? I think you're far too emotional around this to have a clear thought process.

    this, seems like a weird strawman augment to accelerate building a new stadium "wont someone think of the tourisim!"

    most people from anywhere outside Aussie will only come to NZ once, maybe twice if they do north once and south the other....if theyve already been and seen the "shitbox" as you call it (an awesome feat of engineering being design and built in like 6 months for me)...there was probably little chance of them coming back even if coming to see a stadium was the reason the travelled

    @shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    @Hooroo said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    @shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    @Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    @shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    Waste of money, on this dump.

    not if the alternative is Chch missing out of hosting games, the end goal for any of this or the new stadium isn't the stadium....its what it brings to the city, either events for people to enjoy or boosts to the economy

    It'd be a great look: Christchurch, a city largely rebuilt 12 years after a series of 'quakes, and the image - the shop window - we offer to the largest global audience any event here has ever had, is of that absolute shitbox. Sure, we'd get a couple of crowds of maybe 20k but what damage is done to future tourism in the process? No thank you.

    How many cities have your bypassed because you once saw a rubbish stadium on the telly? I think you're far too emotional around this to have a clear thought process.

    People travel to cities because of iconic buildings and landmarks. I went to Dallas last year largely because of a cool stadium which was the shop window. And I can tell you the city itself - aside from a neighbourhood called Deep Ellum - is a bit of a bore. You don't think the inverse can be the case?

    you may do that but you cant think thats the norm for everyone, and we're talking chch, world renowned buildings of significance were never on the cards other than some of the clever emerancy works done after the earthquake...like the shit box you hate so much

    chch is the gateway to the south island, thats its main draw card, people expecting Wembley or the Camp Nou have delusions of grandeur



  • @shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    @Hooroo said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    @shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    @Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    @shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:

    Waste of money, on this dump.

    not if the alternative is Chch missing out of hosting games, the end goal for any of this or the new stadium isn't the stadium....its what it brings to the city, either events for people to enjoy or boosts to the economy

    It'd be a great look: Christchurch, a city largely rebuilt 12 years after a series of 'quakes, and the image - the shop window - we offer to the largest global audience any event here has ever had, is of that absolute shitbox. Sure, we'd get a couple of crowds of maybe 20k but what damage is done to future tourism in the process? No thank you.

    How many cities have your bypassed because you once saw a rubbish stadium on the telly? I think you're far too emotional around this to have a clear thought process.

    People travel to cities because of iconic buildings and landmarks. I went to Dallas last year largely because of a cool stadium which was the shop window. And I can tell you the city itself - aside from a neighbourhood called Deep Ellum - is a bit of a bore. You don't think the inverse can be the case?

    To have a significant or even remotely countable impact? Not in the slightest. I too travel to a city to see a nice stadium but I don't detour because there isn't one. That would be ridiculous and people simply don't travel like that.



  • Meanwhile, you can continue arguing and bitching about every likely idea and continue playing in your temporary shithole stadium AND get no big games.

    At some point you need to bite the bullet and take what is on offer (if you want an improvement).
    Or, like Tauranga you can be a bunch of whingers in a populous area that never end up with anything.



  • If Chch had games at FIFA 2023 - I would imagine the commentary and footage would in part focus on the new fully enclosed stadium opening up shortly (as of 2023) as well as some of the history of the current stadium (built in 100 days post Quake etc).


Log in to reply