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
484716	2006-11-24 12:24:00	[QUOTE=motorbyclist;502036] i love all the words like 'inspiring' and 'world/first class', good to see all the propaganda wasn't a complete waste of our money and actually got some people. Kool....Positivity is the envy of negative people. if we did build it on the waterfront our children will be asking "why is there a bloody great stadium that is hardly ever used blocking the view of the water on the water front?", Tell me how you get past the 2km of red steel fence,and how you entertain yourself with imported cars....and I'll shout you a Zune. "why did they build a stadium when there is no way for everyone to actually get there without bringing the entire city to a halt due to poor infrastructure?", Train,bus,car,taxi... Whakaroa's "MK1 zephyer"....walk....it's all good.Show me the car-park buildings around Eden Park?. www.aucklandcity.govt.nz "why do we have to walk 3 km from our car park to see the game?", 500 meters from Downtown Car park to Stadium N.Z location.How far is it from Eden Parks car parking building?. "how can we call our stadium 'visionary' when it's a copy of a foreign one?", When a European Stadium becomes the "absolute hub" of sports mad Munich residents....It must be doing something right?.Perhaps because it is modern,comfortable,has great access,great patron facilities and great Swiss design.Maybe an indirect clone is not such a bad option. "why did they build a stadium on piles rather than reclaimed land so last week's tsunami could get it and no-one could escape the fire/collapse due to ony one land access?" lol.....Perhaps they should offer all patrons life-jackets and survival kits with civil defense radios.Just how BIG is this supposed fire!?.....All stadiums must comply with strict OSH fire and safety guidelines.If not...it does not get warranted.Full stop. they will still ask (wherever it goes) "why didn't they put a roof on the stadium in-case of rain and to stop noise reaching devonport/mt eden housing?", lol....Heck,that would be an impressive "PA system"!!.......apart from the stadium "cocooning" the sound and "council noise abatement conditions".....the rest of Auckland CBD will be at the stadium enjoying Elton John or Pavarotti.I for one would be at both!. "why can't they treat mummy's cancer in NZ?", They can!.All District Health Boards receive the same level of funding every year regardless of what the Govt injects into other Ministry's.The issue here is one of supply and demand.Surgeons and radiologists are in high demand worldwide....not just in N.Z. "why does Auckland have soooo many stadiums?", Why does London,Moscow,Beijing,Soul,Los Angeles,Berlin,Paris or any other major city have numerous stadiums?. "why did we spend all that money on a building we couldn't finish in time even though the govt. broke all their own laws to try and do it in time?" That's pre-empting something that hasn't even started yet.So much for having faith in Fletcher Construction.Both of whom are charged with building both stadiums.	Utopia (7787)
484717	2006-11-24 12:44:00	Tell me how you get past the 2km of red steel fence,and how you entertain yourself with imported cars....and I'll shout you a Zune. the stadium will cover a large area of actual water that can be seen parking in auckland is bad enough as it is without teh addition of 60,000 people... buses are crap and will be stuck in the traffic, and britomart can only handle 1600 people an hour auckland is not as large as london or bejing, our stadiums are already run at losses (or so i hear) noise will easily carry over the harbour to the north shore, and it seems to be an argument against the mt eden option too - sound waves tend to diffract and the noise will carry far over water, especially after being echoed off the buildings of the city that proposed stadium is hideous, we arent building the german one, we've just stolen the idea for the outside apparently if the stadium is built on piles it will be easily destroyed by a tsunami (i didnt beleive it either), and if the shore side fails it would make evacuation difficult... same situation if for whatever reason it was bombed current waiting lists for cancer treatment are 3 MONTHS long, people are actually being sent to aussie (like the world cup may be) for treatment i would argue more but need sleep.... what's the point anyway, the arc has already exercised their right to veto it and now we have to use mt eden.... personally i would rather carlaw, north shore or even the manukau option over mt eden, but mt eden is still less stupid than the waterfront	motorbyclist (188)
484718	2006-11-24 12:50:00	[QUOTE=MMM;502040] Most kids, maybe not the Auckland ones though, don't give a stuff about where or what the place looks like, they just want to see the game . That's what its all about . That's where the passion and excitement is . This debate is crazy :rolleyes: I've surveyed my cousins aged 9 to 17 and they do care about what venues they go to and what facilities they have . Not just from a "oh I might just get on t . v" point of view . . . . but from a security and transport need . Sorry Utopia, but you're coming across as a snob . I do hope you and your kids are living in an inspiring luxurious and modern mansion worth megabucks, because if you are in a modest renovated home you might find 20yrs later that your children will ask why they had to live in such a "drop kick" residential location . OMG, they might be psychologically damaged for life :stare: . I'm just a normal Kiwi who "tells it like it is",I'm not pretentious or supercilious . . . . . but I do live in a modest apartment building in the CBD . The houses that are on the perimeter of Eden Park are in a "drop kick" location . Why?? . . . because residential area meets "public Stadium" . . . . and the two have never gelled together as far as concerts go . They should have been brought out . . . demolished and better access and infrastructure built . It's a flaming bunch of rugby matches . It's the game everyone is interested in watching, not the surrounding seating . It's beating those flaming Aussies again and hopefully a referee that let's the game flow and not keep stopping it all of the time . It's racing down to the pub to celebrate afterwards . It's feeling bloody proud of our All Blacks and the tick tack parades down the main street when the Rugby cup is over . That's what people will remember, not some monstrous mausoleum . If you can race down to the pub,via extremely congested narrow residential streets,after a Eden Park game . Good on you . I'll still be at the Waterfront Stadium . . . having left the final whistle for a pub in Quay St . . . a mere 100 ft from the venue . $300 million is a ridiculous amount of money that somehow seems to be available all of a sudden . Where is it being taken from? Who is going to lose out? I'd like some answers on that from the govt! Bugger the stadium . I'd like to know why the Government spent 2 Billion dollars on Military Defense in the last 3 years . With limited debate and no "tantrums" . When that money could have been spent elsewhere .	Utopia (7787)
484719	2006-11-24 16:30:00	Hi Utopia, I'd like to know why the Government spent 2 Billion dollars on Military Defense in the last 3 years . With limited debate and no "tantrums" . When that money could have been spent elsewhere . Because the other Defence vehicles, weaponry, and ? helicopters were old and out-of-date, continually breaking down and needing repairs . [the ole number 8 wire probably outlived it's usefulness:o . ] Most of the military work we do involves peace keeping, like East Timor . If we are going to send our guys into hotspots where their lives could be in danger, it's important that they have equipment that allows them to do the job safely . 2 billion dollars doesn't go far when it comes to equipping the NZ military, esp . when replacement of old vehicles etc had been ignored for so long . The army guys deserve the best - they're always there to help when there are natural disasters in NZ, you even see them sometimes on Blenheim Rd in ChCh collecting money for special causes . [haven't been getting out for a while so don't know if they still do the last bit . ] How can you compare a footy game [even if it is the World Cup involving a handful of teams] in a $300 million blob in the Auckland Harbour with NZ's Defence Force? America and Aussi are always bellyaching about us not having enough vehicles, planes, etc to do our bit in the Pacific area . Ironical considering how many times I've seen on the Net, how the American soldiers are being sent into Iraq without the necessary or even the basic protective gear . They're sitting ducks . One of them got shot because he was instructed to hand over his protective armoury to someone else who didn't have one . Bush and his cronies have so much to answer for . Sorry for being so snarky in my last post about your home, I'm more angry at the govt . and you copped it . Will shut up now and get some sleep . Cheers .	MMM (5660)
484720	2006-11-24 19:34:00	Enough of this bull****!.Take a stance,and build Stadium New Zealand. Remembering of course that a government is supposed to represent the views of it's people and comply with the law. So far, pretty much every poll other than the one Dick Hubbard mentioned on Campbell Live (which I'm pretty sure is the online one we decided couldn't be statistically accurate) has shown strong opposition to the stadium. Another thing I don't know has been mentioned in this thread is that with the hundreds of millions you save by not building a waterfront stadium (not building it can be just as visionary as building it), you could buy up huge amounts of houses around Eden Park so residents are not living directly beside the stadium. ;)	maccrazy (6741)
484721	2006-11-24 19:41:00	give us our money back now TAX CUTS	wotz (335)
484722	2006-11-25 01:46:00	give us our money back now TAX CUTS or they could atleast spend it on something USEFUL.... i mean, they have all the money but intend to toll new the motorways etcetc....	motorbyclist (188)
484723	2006-11-25 02:57:00	Waterfront stadium sinking fast Saturday November 25, 2006 By Mathew Dearnaley and Anne Beston Fierce opposition from the Auckland Regional Council is killing off the Government's dream of a waterfront stadium . A $500 million-plus "national stadium" for the 2011 Rugby World Cup and beyond has been Sport Minister Trevor Mallard's preference ahead of a revamped Eden Park . But a Beehive source told the Weekend Herald that the Government was now leaning towards Eden Park, Auckland's traditional home of rugby . It is understood it is realizing that there are too many risks in a harbor-side arena . Mr Mallard dashed away from reporters outside the Ministry of Economic Development's Auckland offices yesterday after the regional council voted 12-0 for a redeveloped Eden Park rather than a waterfront plan it sees as fraught with economic and environmental risks . The minister said only that he had received recommendations from the regional body and the Auckland City Council, which were "not consistent" and which he intended to refer to the Cabinet on Monday . The city council voted on Thursday for a waterfront stadium, but with several conditions . "I am not going to make further comment until then," Mr Mallard said, before being driven off in a Crown car . His play for extra time was in contrast to a two-week deadline of midday yesterday that he had set the councils to choose between the two sites . But it is understood from the Beehive source that the unanimous regional council vote has heightened the Government's awareness that the waterfront proposal is becoming too much of a liability . Neither can it rely on unconditional support from the city council, which voted 13-7 for a waterfront stadium, but only if it could be built "substantially" east of the Government's preferred site straddling Captain Cook and Marsden wharves . Its reason was to get the 37m structure as far away as possible from the harbor view of the heritage Britomart precinct . But the suggestion worried regional councilors already concerned about disruption to the ARC- owned port company's Bledisloe container terminal . Auckland City Mayor Dick Hubbard yesterday refused to concede defeat for the waterfront option, which he says will bring economic transformation to the downtown area . "The door is very definitely half-open . " The city would point out to Mr Mallard that it had received no evidence of potential economic harm to Ports of Auckland . But regional council chairman Mike Lee said his members' concerns were only too real . He said what little was known about the Government's proposal indicated that the cost of compensating the port company for disrupted operations was "round about the $200 million and rising mark" . Regional councilors said the jobs of 173,000 Aucklanders depended on the port and its $21 billion of annual business . The chairman of the council's strategic policy committee, Paul Walbran, said the port was budgeted to contribute $1 billion to ARC spending in the next 10 years to supplement ratepayer contributions, but disruption to the port could take $165 million from that sum . Mr Hubbard, who attended the three-hour regional council meeting, said after it that Auckland City ratepayers could face a heavy financial burden for upgrading Eden Park . The regional council had decided it did not want the Government to rely on its ratepayers to help in redeveloping and running Eden Park . But Mr Lee said the regional council resolution included a call for any alternative to the waterfront option to be regarded as a national stadium . Mr Lee praised Mr Mallard for offering an alternative to Eden Park, but said the regional council had risen to his challenge of expressing a clear-cut preference, in contrast to the city council's conditional support of a waterfront stadium, which he said amounted to an evasion of the minister's question . I'd love to know who this beehive source is,and how he/she could possibly know the outcome of a Cabinet meeting before the actual meeting itself . ? I still believe there is an alternate location fronting Fanshaw Street and backing on to Madden Street . As seen with my previous Google Earth post . Constipated Neurotic fuddy-duddys from the ARC should not be able to destroy whats best for Auckland . That being - The Waterfront Stadium with: #Suburb transport access . #Plentiful Parking . #Close to major hotels . #Close to premier restaurants and bars . #Opens up wharf access which is currently fenced off . #Safe open space for family's and tourists to relax during summer events #Brings Sydney bar/café/restaurant harbor-side scene to Auckland waterfront . Stadium would have all of these surrounding the base of the exterior . Eden Park has NONE of the above! . ***! :badpc: If the Waterfront Stadium does not get the green light . . . I'm leaving N . Z for Dubai . [Along with 30,000 other Kiwi's who leave these shores every year for similar reasons] . They are go-getters . They are the masters of modern projects and infrastructure . There is no Bull**** to go through if they decide to build a National Stadium . They just do it! . Not like Womble ARC whom are the masters of pessimism . That being the loss of a modern National Stadium and now local ratepayers are going to be severely punished because of it . I'm just so glad I don't own a house or land . :D :D :D	Utopia (7787)
484724	2006-11-25 03:31:00	#Suburb transport access . #Plentiful Parking . #Opens up wharf access which is currently fenced off . LOL yeah right, you won't find that ANYWHERE in auckland wharf access? they'll be putting a bloody great stadium on top of the wharves, removing the 'water' from the 'water front' . . . kinda like the togs/undies ad;) and enough with the 'visionary' adjectives already He said what little was known about the Government's proposal indicated that the cost of compensating the port company for disrupted operations was "round about the $200 million and rising mark" . so you can add that to the cost of the waterfront stadium Regional councilors said the jobs of 173,000 Aucklanders depended on the port and its $21 billion of annual business . The chairman of the council's strategic policy committee, Paul Walbran, said the port was budgeted to contribute $1 billion to ARC spending in the next 10 years to supplement ratepayer contributions, but disruption to the port could take $165 million from that sum . i don't see why auckland ratepayers should have to suffer for a 'national' stadium, especially as we all polls but ONE said no to the waterfront . . . it is a democracy after all, we vote and decicions are made based on that vote, if you dont like it too bad the majority does - even if they are 'wrong'	motorbyclist (188)
484725	2006-11-25 05:11:00	[QUOTE=Utopia;502168]I'd love to know who this beehive source is,and how he/she could possibly know the outcome of a Cabinet meeting before the actual meeting itself.? Possibly the same source that said that the government initially favoured the waterfront even though Boof Mallard said that it was up to Aucklanders to choose. I still believe there is an alternate location fronting Fanshaw Street and backing on to Madden Street.As seen with my previous Google Earth post. I think Carlaw was the best option followed by the Manukau. Everyone has different options for that. And in a city of 1 million that spans a huge area, old Boof Mallard decided that there were only two possible places.!!!!!. That, I think shows a lack of vision. In a city that covers such a huge area of land he decided that the best place to put it was not on any land at all and right between Aucklanders and the thing Aucklanders prize the most (our harbour) Constipated Neurotic fuddy-duddys from the ARC should not be able to destroy whats best for Auckland.That being - The Waterfront Stadium with: #Suburb transport access. #Plentiful Parking. #Close to major hotels. #Close to premier restaurants and bars. #Opens up wharf access which is currently fenced off. #Safe open space for family's and tourists to relax during summer events #Brings Sydney bar/café/restaurant harbor-side scene to Auckland waterfront.Stadium would have all of these surrounding the base of the exterior. The waterfront did have some benefits. I think more people would have used public transport for one. I think your first 4 reasons up there are good reasons for Carlaw as well. However, the last three I just cant agree with. Nobody I know wants to spend time around a massive structure like a 13 storey stadium. Its just uncomfortable being around something that big. When was the last time you said"Hey, lets not go to the beach or the park today, Lets go and sit underneath the stands at Eden Park, (but ofcourse much larger). Open public areas for people to enjoy need to be low rise. Its just a more comfortable atmosphere for people to be around. Vulcan Lane, and the viaduct harbour compared to Hobson street or sitting underneath those "Scene aprtments". Which would you choose. Its simple. People will not go to a place will a building that large and dominating. Lets add to this that Quay street will be irrepairably damaged. The stadium will be to the north of Quay street casting a huge shadow, which means that a large part of Quay street will be in perpetual darkness. How many people will go to an area constantly cold and in shadow?. Then you must take into account that the smell of the sea that is there now will be replaced by the smell of wet concrete,. Lets now use your supposed mighty visionary skills to imagine the state of the water. Surely you are not buying into this artificial beach rubbish. It is between large container ships and large ferries constantly coming in and dumping fuel and what have you, there is a raw sewage pipe in that place which they will have to move, that has been there for a long time. That must be the dirtiest water in Auckland. "Lets not go to mission bay, takapuna beach or any of the beautiful clean beaches in Auckland, Lets go swim in toxic goo and get a fresh green glow!". Do you think 60,000 people waiting to leave one side of the stadium will be so disciplined after their 10 beers that they will not throw there rubbish into the sea while waiting to exit?. This stadium will stand for 60 or more years. The ports have already given up the tank farm area, the city council want to buy Queens wharf, at the moment, and what happens if Marsden and Captain Cook become available in 15 years?. The ports are commited to try and move as far east as possible. The best thing I think that this discussion has done is send a clear message to the ports and the councils that Aucklanders DO want as much waterfront land as we can get. DONT YOU SEE UTOPIA? you see this as a choice between a stadium and used cars . Other people with the vision to see further down the track see it as a choice between a stadium now that stands for 60 years, and destroys the waterfront, or waiting for 10 or 15 years and having a large open public space with low rise buildings, more Vulcan lanes, and parks that look out on the water, a view from Quay street, and some sort of Monument building like a Sydney opera house that is small enough not to seriously block views or dominate the area, but will be much more attractive to be around than some plonky ugly stadium. This is a choice between a stadium and used cars for the short sighted, who cant see past next Mondays cabinet meeting, and for people with a bit of vision its a choice between a big plonky ugly stadium and something like a Sydney opera house or an Eiffel tower, or a statue of Liberty, etc,etc.Something much more monumental and visionary and inspired than an ugly stadium. Easy choice.	saljens (11135)
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