| 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 | ||
| 484666 | 2006-11-17 02:32:00 | Let me say I support our glorious leader from this frenzied attack. | Cicero (40) | ||
| 484667 | 2006-11-17 02:48:00 | Rachel in her better days: static.flickr.com Here's the two of them together: cache.kotaku.com |
zqwerty (97) | ||
| 484668 | 2006-11-17 10:45:00 | Keep yourself up-to-date. www.skyscrapercity.com http://www.waterfrontstadium.co.nz :thumbs: |
Utopia (7787) | ||
| 484669 | 2006-11-17 15:02:00 | I like the idea behind the stadium, but wouldnt it be fair to centralise it? So lets do a cross section on a map and see where that ends up.... |
rob_on_guitar (4196) | ||
| 484670 | 2006-11-19 08:53:00 | Councillors in shock stadium u-turn Sunday November 19, 2006 By Jared Savage Most Auckland City councillors now favour building a stadium on the waterfront instead of Eden Park - but not at its current site. A straw poll of the 19 councillors and Mayor Dick Hubbard has revealed the Government-backed stadium has gained favour with the council a week after nearly half of them supported exploring Carlaw Park as an option. Hubbard and 11 councillors have indicated they are leaning towards building a waterfront stadium- but only if it is built further east than the proposed site. After two days of intensive meetings with various parties, including Sports Minister Trevor Mallard, the council had their first discussion with Auckland's "urban design champion" Ludo Campbell-Reid. The former head of London's urban design team had "serious concerns" about the current site and design for the proposed stadium, which was too big, and would block the view shafts protected around Britomart. No matter how well the stadium was designed, Campbell-Reid said, a stadium built between Marsden and Cook wharves could not fit in with the city's urban design. Instead, Campbell-Reid suggested the stadium should be shifted further east towards Bledisloe wharf. Councillors spoken to yesterday expressed admiration for his vision for the waterfront, calling it "inspired", "iconic" and "compelling". "I'm excited about the waterfront but we must pay respect to it. So we need to work on the current design and the further east we go, the better for the city," Campbell-Reid said. However, the land is occupied by the Ports of Auckland who have previously said a stadium could not be built on the wharf without disrupting port business - worth $21 billion a year. Many of the Auckland City councillors spoken to supported shifting the stadium to Bledisloe wharf, which was the original plan proposed by Government, but the land could not be taken by force. The Herald Poll: See how Auckland voted Auckland Regional Council owns the port land through its investment arm Auckland Regional Holdings, and is keen to protect its assets which provide millions of dollars of funding. However, ARC councillors were keeping tight-lipped yesterday when asked to express a preference for a waterfront stadium or Eden Park. While most of the regional councillors said they would not make a decision until getting all the facts, some broke ranks to tell the Herald on Sunday their preference - a number split down the middle. Chairman Mike Lee said the public had the right to know but Auckland's most important decision in decades should not be scrutinised in a "trial by media". He has previously said the ARC has taken Eden Park as a default position until the council is convinced that the Ports of Auckland, owned by the ARC's investment arm, would not suffer financially. "That is a discussion for us to have with Government, not the Auckland City Council," Lee said. Ports chief executive Geoff Vazey has previously said that Marsden and Captain Cook wharves are the only port land which could be taken. Auckland City Council and the Auckland Regional Council must tell Mallard whether they support the waterfront or Eden Park by Friday. |
Utopia (7787) | ||
| 484671 | 2006-11-19 10:43:00 | Put the Waka Stadium right where it can be seen, it beats looking at rusty ships unloading second hand cars. By the time the officials are done bickering Rod Stewart won't be the only old dude being wheeled in. It would be worth having one totally new structure in Auckland that is aesthetically appealing as well as useful just for a change. | R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 484672 | 2006-11-19 10:54:00 | Put the Waka Stadium right where it can be seen, it beats looking at rusty ships unloading second hand cars. By the time the officials are done bickering Rod Stewart won't be the only old dude being wheeled in. It would be worth having one totally new structure in Auckland that is aesthetically appealing as well as useful just for a change. useful? it may be useful, but it is not practical and it will only render the existing stadiums obsolete.... we already have stadiums surplus to requirements in auckalnd, so why build another one? |
motorbyclist (188) | ||
| 484673 | 2006-11-19 21:00:00 | It would be worth having one totally new structure in Auckland that is aesthetically appealing as well as useful just for a change.While I wouldn't say that some of the buildings that have been built lately are all that great, I don't think a nine story stadium separating the city from the sea is going to be all that aesthetically pleasing. Regardless of what anyone says, something that big can not just merge in nicely. Once it is there, it is there for a very long time. It's not like you can just get rid of it in 10 years if you don't like it anymore. it beats looking at rusty ships unloading second hand cars. According to this article (www.nzherald.co.nz): Pragmatists point to the site's present eyesore status - fenced off to the public, a used car lot against a container terminal backdrop. But the port company has pledged to vacate the area within 10 years and many architects see the potential for people-focused redevelopment, with low-scale cultural facilities taking advantage of the harbour setting. |
maccrazy (6741) | ||
| 484674 | 2006-11-20 01:48:00 | Why not just build a floating stadium with a temporary support base? [All patrons and players hop on board at the wharf, then they float it out If our side lose the match - just pull the plug :thumbs: ] Lease it to the next country that holds the matches. And in between times the various provinces in NZ can borrow it as/when the occasion requires. All in all, I reckon there's no way any of the choices will be finished in time, regardless of where they put it, and NZ will end up with egg all over its face - again. :groan: :groan: |
MMM (5660) | ||
| 484675 | 2006-11-20 07:54:00 | Councillors in shock stadium u-turn Sunday November 19, 2006 By Jared Savage to tell the Herald on Sunday their preference Hi Utopia Although it is alluded to within your message (see above), you are bound to more specifically spell out your source. It seems to be clearly "Herald on Sunday". Great that you give us the detail that they put into their article but you need to give them credit (even though I read the Sunday Star/Times in preference !) cheers Misty :D |
Misty (368) | ||
| 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 | |||||