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
484696 2006-11-24 01:02:00 It is a waste of space putting the stadium on the waterfront.It will not be used 365 days a year. People say let's use it for concerts. How often do we get a major touring act down here that would fill up to 60,000 seats. Most acts want smaller indoor venues, we now have the Vector arena for that with 12,000 seats. Oh we could use it for Motor cross displays etc..I don't think the rugby boys would want their turf ripped up. A major concern I have the the waterfront stadium is the safe egress of people in the event of a fire/bomb scare etc. With the waterfront stadium there is only one side facing land which means 60,000 people have to filter through the same exits. A stadium built on land people can exit in four directions to escape. This waterfront stadium has not be thought through ..There will be delays just look at wembley stadium and even the Vector arena in Auckland. Just my thoughts

All valid points. Everyone who seems to be promoting the stadium hve their own selfish motives. I doubt it is going ahead now, unless the goverment bucks public and council opinions and recommendations. 		rogerp (6864)
484697 2006-11-24 01:40:00 i think the politicians down in wellington looked out at the cake tin and thought "why waht a good idea, lets do the same thing in auckland! we'll even get the same architects and make a copy of foriegn stadiums 'cause they look good!" :groan:

if aucklnad was the capital i bet we'd see ALOT more happening to get things like traffic sorted, but they wont come up here, the protests/marches on the new beehive would be too extreme due to the numbers 		motorbyclist (188)
484698 2006-11-24 02:29:00 The ARC has decided for Eden Park and against the waterfront .


e) That having weighed up the costs, risks and potential benefits of the proposed Waterfront Stadium (over Marsden and Captain Cook wharves) the Council considers the proposal inappropriate for the following reasons:

iv) The proposed waterfront stadium would have a significant negative impact on the heritage and urban design values of the Britomart precinct and the adjacent waterfront area .


#My god!!! . Yes,lets just keep Auckland CBD looking exactly the same as it was 60yrs ago . Lets not allow any "heritage" buildings to be demolished in order to facilitate modern commercial facilities . In fact lets all wear clothes from the pioneer days,so we can blend in better with our "heritage and urban design values" . :groan: This is how we want the rest of "high tech - modern infrastructure" OECD to see us . Lets invite wealthy,well traveled ,technology savvy people to our shores to be inspired by our "pimped out Lada" residentially located Stadium . This is cutting edge infrastructure that will not decay the "Grand heritage" [S**t-heap housing of Eden Park area] and urban design values that we all inspire to and hold in such high regard! . :groan:


v) The waterfront option will be very expensive to build and entails significant risks and costs in meeting deadlines

#Both options will be expensive relative to there location . Both have deadlines . Both have the same construction company and similar audit processes in place . ***!!


f) That, having weighed up the costs, risks and potential benefits of both the options it was asked to consider, the Council's preference is the re-development of Eden Park because:

a - We are fuddy duddys stuck in a 1950's time-warp .
b - We have no vision or understanding of the concept called innovation .
c - We are draconian and anti big projects .
d - We are led by a noddy called Mike Lee whom drives a Hillman Imp
e - We have ultra Conservative values and place great credence on "old" history .
f - We have no intellect .
g - We are no-body's .
h - We want heritage for our children,whom will leave N . Z after varsity because of the above :horrified

"God save New Zealand" 		Utopia (7787)
484699 2006-11-24 02:36:00 #Both options will be expensive relative to there location . Both have deadlines . Both have the same construction company and similar audit processes in place . ***!!

relative to their location? fact still remain the waterfront will cost twice as much, and eden park will not take as long to construct either .

and as for heritage, i agree that's bs, but the waterfront's infrastructure cannot support a building of that size/capacity . . . we'll still have a new stadium, just in a different spot - so where's the problem?


YAY the anti-waterfront people win!:p

of course ARC denied the stadium - they make millions off that port:lol: 		motorbyclist (188)
484700 2006-11-24 02:54:00 Glad the arc has shown some common sense . The waterfront stadium would have been 13 storeys tall, and with a rugby feild, 100m by 50m, + 25 each side for the stands , you are talking about 150m long by 100m wide plonked right in front of one of the most beautiful natural harbours in the world .

If anybody knows downtown Auckland . Those new god awful "Scene" apartments that people complain about because they block the view of the water and have basically created a wall between the city and the harbour are also 13 storeys tall . . The same height as the stadium but the stadium would have been much bulkier .

For anyone who knows downtown Auckland, that should be just too big . Its in the wrong place and I hope Mallard gives up his Wellingtonian dream now .

I also take issue with people saying opponents of the waterfront have no vision . Rubbish, I think its the other way around . We can quite clearly see what this thing will look like right next to a heritage precinct, destroying its view, its main selling point . People will move back up the hill to Anzac Ave or what ever to get a view of the harbour . That area along the waterfront will lose its appeal and just become another run down area of Auckland . Who will pay lots of money to live, or work, next to a great harbour and not be able to see it? No-one . . . . . They will just move somewhere else that does have a view . A stadium there will destroy the waterfront, not revitalize it . Also, the urban design and Architectural feilds have been almost unanimous in their opposition to this site . You are telling me that all the urban design professionals, and Architects, whose job is to have vision, and a majority of Aucklanders dont have vision but a minister with no experience or training in urban design, that is not even from our city, knows exactly what should be done????? .


I really think Mallard has acted like a private developer rather than a minister . He was acting for his own dream and using public money to do it while ignoring other, better options around Auckland for seemingly strange or foundationless reasons . He dismissed Carlaw park because it didnt have an area to spill out on for people after the game even though it borders the Auckland domain on two sides which regularly hosts Christmas in the Park with 100,000 . You could not dream of a better place to disperse people from than Carlaw .
He dismissed the Manukau option as too expensive even though he doesnt know how much the Waterfront will cost, and he dismissed North Harbour for . . . . . . . . . . I dont know why, he just dismissed it .

The funny thing is is that most of the objections to the waterfront have been from people complaining about the view . The National stadium idea was fine . So ,if Mallard had put the Manukau option against Eden park, I think Manukau would have won . Likewise Carlaw against Eden Park, Carlaw would have won, North Harbour would probably have won as well . We could have had a national stadium if he had chosen almost anywhere else in Auckland except that part of the waterfront . 		saljens (11135)
484701 2006-11-24 05:29:00 i agree entirely with the above post . . . 100%:thumbs:

i'd like to ask why they couldn't just build the waterfront one in the manukau for the same cost without all the issues?

and why is it every other country is trying to increase port capacity while NZ is trying to put a bloody great stadium on top of our busiest port . . . . . that port makes 5 billion a year, so of course ARC was going to tell the govt to f*** off - they would lose too much money 		motorbyclist (188)
484702 2006-11-24 09:14:00 The Government to decide .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's about time the Government of N . Z grew a large set of "balls" and with that set a new precedent for this country . That being commercial advancement for the future of this nation .

Enough of this bull****! . Take a stance,and build Stadium New Zealand .

I'm most certainly am not going to be held accountable ,when in 20 years time our children demand answers to the following! .

#Why did you refurbish such a "dumb arse" stadium in such a "drop kick" residential location"!? . :(

#Who was responsible for turning down an *inspiring* stadium along the waterfront!? . :annoyed:

#Why do we have a "hick" warehouse style Stadium in suburbia and not a "choice" first class stadium along the waterfront!? . :mad:

I don't know of many countries that have such a *circus* of regional councils as what we have here in Auckland . 5 Councils looking after the city of Auckland . What a joke . That is the problem here . And I say *fix it* . . . because if you don't . . . your children will!!!! . :eek:

Go the Government . Go the Waterfront Stadium!! :thumbs: 		Utopia (7787)
484703 2006-11-24 09:26:00 I have changed my position a bit,I'm all for a waterfront stadium, Though only if its the Waka Stadium, Is in no way attributed to the monkeys currently running the country, Nor built for the Rugby World Cup and that the project is forced to abide by the conditions that govern every other project in NZ, Meaning resource consent and self-serving councils.

Hell, Try and do something, anything and these uptight public servants and their paper-work will not only suck all your cash from you but exhaust your enthusiasm to the point you hate your own idea and want to give up but cant because you spent so much money already.

Its about time all the pollies and the local administrators were reminded who they work for and what their job is, Mallard is a prick, Thinks its his money and he is above question. 		Metla (12)
484704 2006-11-24 09:34:00 Mallard and vision, what a joke, It doesn't take "vision" to replicate what they already have in Wellington, and even then building a bed-pan stadium would have to be the most boring and flavourless vision anybody could come up with. Might as well have built a lake and declared himself a visionary.

Mallard, People hate your idea because its a sh1t idea and you are without vision, Go view the Waka stadium website and see what someone with vision can come up with. I would happily drop a billion or 2 on that sucker, after you have fixed up the health system though, You have the means and the money(ours, give it back you bastard) to do it, Your a criminal if you dont, May you and your family be visited by a 1000 lepers.


Muhahahahaha.


Pity the polesmoker doesn't read this forum. 		Metla (12)
484705 2006-11-24 09:58:00 I quite like Mallards supercilious look,that look that suggests he is doing us a favour,spending our money on what will do him good in the ratings. Cicero (40)
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