| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 72460 | 2006-09-13 21:15:00 | National Stadium Auckland Waterfront | Utopia (7787) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 484626 | 2006-11-14 11:41:00 | It's a multi purpose stadium, a roof would ruin it for hot-air balloons and parachutists :D why cant they have a retractable roof like in wales? and as for all the fuss about the residents/noise around mt. eden, without a roof the noise will easily carry over the harbour to devonport.... i say the manukau option if they want a new one, or the north shore one if they want to improve one, or not at all incase i get cancer and have to wait 3 months for treatment in NZ because the govt. wont properly fund healthcare:annoyed: |
motorbyclist (188) | ||
| 484627 | 2006-11-14 15:04:00 | After seeing the reaction on TV1 News from waterfront apartment owners who'd lose the views they went there for, I see that stadium vision sinking fast . (Dare I call it dead in the water? No, perhaps too cliched . . . ) This isn't just a quiet little group . One woman said there were 15 thousand affected in those buildings - as many as in the town of Huntly . I wouldn't know . . These people have paid big money for their harbour views & they're rallying for a fight . So I wouldn't back any stadium visionary against a bunch of Aucklanders told by whichever officialdom that they're about to lose the sight of Rangitoto permanently . I'm not surprised they don't accept the say-so of anybody involved - from cabinet ministers to Mayors to the Rugby Union, not counting rugby-loving Joe Bloggs, who's all mouth with no personal sacrifices on the horizon . Actually . I agree with them . If it was my home, the Archangel Gabriel himself wouldn't stand a chance of silencing me . . . . |
Laura (43) | ||
| 484628 | 2006-11-14 15:05:00 | Sorry. This was a double post. | Laura (43) | ||
| 484629 | 2006-11-14 20:44:00 | I also heard that thier is a developing problem for players related to the use of the new stadium in Australia that is built over a carpark (sorry cannot remember which one), the players say that as the substructure under the dirt is concrete there is less "give" in the field, it is suspected that this is contributing to the increased insidence of leg strain and other issues. The Aussie stadium is great for spectators but a problem for the players they have come to see, no use having star players sitting on the sideline. A caller to redio sport raised another good point, who is responsible for the cost of ongoing maintenence if the waterfront option goes ahead ?? Who will sit on the board and be recieving the annual stipend to make thier bank balance more healthy?? | gommerkrinkle (11137) | ||
| 484630 | 2006-11-14 20:54:00 | Having lived in other countrys over the last 12 years and now living in New Zealand.I find your country has a lot less problems than you think.Its a great place with great people.My belief in life is that if you want a better life get off your arse and do it for your self!! I have never had to rely on a government to help me when i am down and out or sick.I do not want to live in a nanny state!!!I am not hopeless and lazy.Your gouvernment did not go to war in Iraque..They aint so bad!!! Building a stadium on the waterfront is no big deal, all you have there at the moment is a container farm and dodgy crap inported junk cars. This to me is probably the most progressive long term ideas i have seen from a government So what if it is going to cost a bit more money than Eden park,which is in the middle of a residential area anyway with no vibe!!! Just imagine going to see the mighty All Blacks or rock concerts at the waterfront and afterwards celebrating in the bars of Britamart and the CBD.It would create a great vibe in Auckland City.Tourists will be drawn to this attraction..So would the money!!!I think surrounding property prices will actually increase.I read somewhere that everyone was against the sky tower too and now it is an iconic building that everyone loves.. Some radical building projects have been done in citys such as London, New York and not to mention Sydney (opera house).If the planners had listened to all the negative short sighted press, These cities would not be such progressive places to live. |
tyronelr (11139) | ||
| 484631 | 2006-11-15 06:22:00 | These cities would not be such progressive places to live. I hope that's not the last word on this topic. I have read a lot of ordinary people's views on this and other websites. There is some very sensible reasoning to be found, and a lot of hyperbole using words such as "world-class", "iconic" and "progressive". I just received an email from the Labour Party in which "world-class" was repeated three times in the text! It is what they said about the Britomart development but what value is that to Auckland actually? Its like putting a luxury-brand hood ornament on a beat-up old car! Just what does "world-class" mean? I can't believe Kiwis take this sort of hype so seriously. A national inferiority complex! Undertatement, refinement, integrity and popular contentment are characteristics of the enduringly-loved cities of the world. A "Look at me!" attitude betrays immaturity, insecurity and grasping at straws. It's interesting that the NZ Herald "respones from Aucklanders" (Readers' Views) currently gives 82% against the Waterfront option, while TV One's poll gives 62% in favour of it! I hope the nation has the integrity to let Aucklander's decide as seems proper. |
Jerry Evans (11138) | ||
| 484632 | 2006-11-15 06:35:00 | If money is available to build a crappy stadium the money should be spent on the Health System, not making already rich businessmen/women even richer, or give ~ $150 to every Kiwi for Christmas. | zqwerty (97) | ||
| 484633 | 2006-11-15 07:30:00 | Now the govt. is talking about an "open book" system (basically BLANK CHEQUE) for constructing the "base" of the stadium. Where on earth do you ever see a project of any sort, built with no predetermined budgets or commitments to keep costs down? When something this large is being constructed with taxpayer money, you simply can't let a private company, whether it's Fletchers or not, charge whatever they feel like. | somebody (208) | ||
| 484634 | 2006-11-15 07:55:00 | Hmmmm, a few new posters in here with a bit to say..:xmouth: Oh, and I don't think Aucklanders should have the only say over where it goes, as all of New Zealand will be paying for it! |
SolMiester (139) | ||
| 484635 | 2006-11-15 08:28:00 | Hmmmm, a few new posters in here with a bit to say..:xmouth: Oh, and I don't think Aucklanders should have the only say over where it goes, as all of New Zealand will be paying for it! I agree completely. |
somebody (208) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 | |||||