| 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 | ||
| 484636 | 2006-11-15 09:02:00 | Eden Park is around 3km from central Auckland - 1 bus stage - and is in a residential area. The waterfront is closer to central Auckland - and is also surrounded by large numbers of residential apartments - not to mention houses on the North Shore. Has anyone ever noticed how sound carries over water? Its entirely possible that MORE residents, rather than less, will be affected by the noise leading to even greater restrictions on events. And people who bought for the view - which is stunning - will be highly ticked off. Auckland should be encouraging yacht races, not motor sports at conjested points or rugby matches on the harbour. We can't win. Build something on the outskirts with decent parking - like the North Harbour stadium 16km or so from the city - and it is too far. Build it in the city - like the speedway, Eden Park OR the new stadium - and the residents hate the noise and restrictions on use apply. |
Mercury (1316) | ||
| 484637 | 2006-11-15 09:08:00 | According to this thread the general consensus is that the waterfront stadium is not favoured due to: Roading infrastructure issues, traffic jams with having a 60 000 seat stadium right in downtown . Huge cost of building the stadium with rates going up for Aucklanders and also other tax payers forking money out for this . The amount of money can be better spent for health system and roading . Obstructing views for downtown waterfront with a huge staidum smack right in middle of city and 'noise' effects to residents near stadium . All i can say is i strongly favor the Waterfront option over Eden Park or anywhere else in NZ and to a lesser degree over any other brand new stadium elsewhere in Auck . I don’t disagree with the reasons most people are giving against Waterfront stadium . But what I do think is that the reasons/concerns are exaggerated . For starters there will be traffic/congestion but its not like the stadium will be used 24x7 7 days a week and hold games 9 in the morning with people getting stuck in traffic . It will be used mostly weekends and Fri nights when traffic congestion is probably at its lowest . And I don’t think 60 000 stadium goers create traffic congestion equivalent to Auck morning rush hour not to mention every single game played at the stadium wont be at capacity every single time . The waterfront stadium is very ‘central’ to public transport (rail and bus) . Yes those who wish to commute by car will not find easy car park but then again night events generally mean you can take some advantage of free after 6pm parks around the city . I have lived in Mt Eden for years and traffic congestion around Eden park during games is worse then anyone can imagine - during the Lions tours, the traffic was chaotic . Road closures were in place around the dominion/sandringham Rd itself, with so much disruption to the residents and thru traffic . And all this without yet expanding the capacity of Eden Park . Public transport as they say for Mt Eden is much more restrictive compared to the central city stadium which has easy access from South/West/East . As for blocking view at waterfront with this huge stadium, herein lies the irony of NZ’rs - Everyone is so concerned about beauty/clean green image/environment etc which gives NZ its image around the world (which is great) yet it comes with a price – lacking behind other countries in everything else . If we have a world class rugby team, let’s showcase with something bold and that gives a classy ‘image’ not just for hosting rugby games but other games/events . Otherwise we will just see the bloody Aussies and others snatch everything to hold and showoff to the rest of the world because NZ just doesn’t have it as we are forever busy with environment concerns and views and comfort zones of all NZrs . I mean for Waterfront residents nearby concerned with noise – think again, waterfront stadium won’t be used everyday to kill of their peace/sleep thru your noise reduction walls . And yes we definitely need to get our roading infrastructure fixed in Auck and elsewhere and cut down the waiting lists for hospitals but for opportunities like this to showcase Auck/NZ and feel proud of what NZ can also offer apart from just its picturesque image doesn’t come along everyday . Its not like the roading infrastructure will stop if the waterfront will go ahead . Having a waterfront stadium is really a bold statement by Auck/NZ that we the little isolated NZ can be right up there with the big guns and that to get it done we are prepared to spend a bit extra $$ and not squabble endlessly on whose views are getting obstructed . And personally I feel having a shiny makeover to Eden Park stadium in a poorly placed suburban area will still not give that world class edge and boldness that the waterfront stadium will have…no doubt . |
RWC2011 (9262) | ||
| 484638 | 2006-11-15 09:13:00 | "right up there with the big guns" Yeah just like we were with the World Cup Yachting. |
zqwerty (97) | ||
| 484639 | 2006-11-15 10:47:00 | 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! That's a fair point. A "National Stadium". A "National Museum". We all pay! However, some opposition to the proposal is not concerned about money but about the environment in which Aucklanders live, their love and pride for their city and treasured harbour. |
Jerry Evans (11138) | ||
| 484640 | 2006-11-15 12:17:00 | And I don’t think 60 000 stadium goers create traffic congestion equivalent to Auck morning rush hour not to mention every single game played at the stadium wont be at capacity every single time. You live in cookoo land because there is a university campus stadium in the USA that has a 9 lane highway going to it and it gets congested because everyone is arriving and leaving at the same time. I heard today the Labour Govt is happy to stump up $200million to develop this stadium. If it is such a great idea why isn't private enterprise handling it. Seems as private enterprise is such a great thing. BNZ, Air New Zealand, Railways all been privatised and had to be bailed out using the tax payers money. |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 484641 | 2006-11-15 12:28:00 | 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. The Labour Part is sending emails about this now? Gee, my occasional letterbox newsletters from my local MP/cabinet minister (who I actually know & respect for his efforts) haven't got that far yet. (Oh, I forgot. haven't ever trusted a political party with my email address) |
Laura (43) | ||
| 484642 | 2006-11-15 15:46:00 | It will be used mostly weekends and Fri nights when traffic congestion is probably at its lowest . probably? 3:30am is the lowest, weekends and friday nights are busy to very busy And I don’t think 60 000 stadium goers create traffic congestion equivalent to Auck morning rush hour not to mention every single game played at the stadium wont be at capacity every single time . adding 60,000 rugby fans to auckland all at once will create conjestion around the waterfront, there's no way around it The waterfront stadium is very ‘central’ to public transport (rail and bus) . Yes those who wish to commute by car will not find easy car park but then again night events generally mean you can take some advantage of free after 6pm parks around the city . it may be central to public transport but aucklands public transport is, frankly, useless . . . in some (many) areas is the greater region public transport has infact increased conjestion (damn bus lanes! sure i can use 'em on my bike, but they still hold everyone else up) I mean for Waterfront residents nearby concerned with noise – think again, waterfront stadium won’t be used everyday to kill of their peace/sleep thru your noise reduction walls . but residents got western springs closed down due to noise, even though they had moved in knowing the noise would be there! |
motorbyclist (188) | ||
| 484643 | 2006-11-15 15:54:00 | Auckland should be encouraging yacht races, not motor sports at conjested points or rugby matches on the harbour . why? i personally love motorsport and would have enjoyed having the V8s over here (i'm not a V8 fan in any way, but i still would have enjoyed it) . while i agree that the conjestion would have been murder, it was only to be for a short period of time . i'm not a rugby (or boating/sailing) fan either, but i know many people are . . . . so why encourage yacht races over other sports? and how? |
motorbyclist (188) | ||
| 484644 | 2006-11-15 18:06:00 | Check out my latest ideas: www.skyscrapercity.com |
Utopia (7787) | ||
| 484645 | 2006-11-15 20:50:00 | Thankyou for such a positive and open minded view RC2011 You know it makes sense!!!! Rock on!! |
tyronelr (11139) | ||
| 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 | |||||