General Mt Smart Stadium

I get the feeling too many people are captivated by the pretty pictures of Quay Park without really thinking things through. At the moment, our National Stadium is privately owned by Auckland Cricket and the ARU. Do we really want to go down the same path by having a Stadium owned by a private consortium?
Yes please. It's like having the Warriors run by the ARL or a private consortium. I'll take the private consortium thanks, particularly if it's a good one. If we get a new, world class stadium at very little cost to the ratepayers, get to recoup some or all the money sunk in to Eden Park, redevelop the waterfront further and break up the old boys network then I'm easily on the side of yes. Lot of ifs there though .
 
Last edited:
Just catching up with that Quay Park render - i've been a long term sceptic of a waterfront stadium, just on aesthetics alone - why would you stick a wall up on a harbour edge with that view? Goes against the whole rationale of the red-fence haters. So the open frame to Rangitoto is naturally the best idea, it's actually pretty cool - and integrating the old railway station is a canny move too - now, the real hard work is what to do with the port - it's still vital to the economics of auckland, and will remain so for some years yet : can't see how that's easily solved - Brown's lease idea seems stupid (though I didn't bother lodging a submission on it)
 
The Quay Park is the dream.

But I have the sinking feeling we'll end up with an Eden Park rebuild
Complete with Eden Park still being a Rectangular (Union/Football/League) and Oval (Cricket) stadium.
Always said I wouldn't mind Eden Park half as much if it had the nerve to commit to being a rectangular stadium.
 
Complete with Eden Park still being a Rectangular (Union/Football/League) and Oval (Cricket) stadium.
Always said I wouldn't mind Eden Park half as much if it had the nerve to commit to being a rectangular stadium.
Spot on. I also hate the fact it's owned by a trust who always go to the council cap in hand, but the truly dire viewing experience is the main issue.

It isn't a suitable cricket venue, full stop. You cannot play a round field game in a rectangular ground, and vice versa.

The scary thing is the revamp video actually has them doubling down on being a cricket venue by mentioning they want to further align to ICC standards. They are morons, and the council are morons if they buy into it.
 

Auckland stadium: Downtown, Waterfront or Eden Park? Deadline looming for main stadium decision​

A decision on the best future option for Auckland’s main stadium will be made next month.

It was originally due to be earlier but the timetable has been revised, due to further due diligence being done on the four competing pitches. A council working group is currently assessing the options for Auckland’s principal arena, with the aim of future-proofing the city in terms of stadium requirements - after decades of debate.

The working group, which was set up last September by Mayor Wayne Brown, has engaged a local consulting practice to act as independent advisors. They are not one of the big four accounting firms.

They have been charged with delving deeper into what was presented in December last year, when each proposal gave a 75-minute pitch to the working group. The advisors have met each bid team on multiple occasions.

“We’ve got someone who knows their stuff to go around and kick the tyres and talk to all the bidders,” said councillor Shane Henderson, who chairs the working group. “I can gauge the public mood as a politician but I don’t know how to run a stadium.”

“It’s important that we can get some of that expertise. Getting into the detail, the real weeds of it all. Because we have to be confident as a city that this is 100 per cent viable, that it financially stacks up, all that kind of stuff.”

Asked if he was confident that the assessors could be truly neutral - given there are connections everywhere in the city - Henderson was unequivocal.

“100 per cent,” said Henderson. “That is the number one criteria. Auckland’s a small place. I get that. So to appoint anyone I needed to be 100 per cent confident in their independence and impartiality and that is the spirit that I take as the chair as well.”

The working group has also decided to use quantative criteria, to give each prospective bid a rating across different aspects.

“It’s a tool for debate - but a very useful tool,” said Henderson.

The other councillors on the working group are Julie Fairey, Wayne Walker, Daniel Newman and Chris Darby. The panel also includes Sport New Zealand chief executive Raelene Castle, Tātaki Auckland Unlimited boss Nick Hill, Tau Henare (independent Māori statutory representative) and mayoral adviser Simon Johnston.

The four options under consideration are;

- Eden Park 2.1. A redevelopment of the historic venue, pushing the capacity to 60,000.

- Waterfront Arena Aotearoa. This is centred on a 50,000-seat facility at Bledisloe Wharf. Known as the “sunken stadium”.

- The Tank Farm. Based at Wynyard Point, with a 55,000 capacity rectangular stadium along with an 8,000 seat indoor arena.

- Quay Park or Te Toangaroa. A 50,000-capacity downtown stadium, part of a new sports and entertainment precinct at the eastern end of the waterfront.

The working group is scheduled to have its final meeting next week, together with the independent advisors.

“It will be behind closed doors - thrashing out the criteria,” explained Henderson. “This one is better for transport, this one for the environment, etcetera.”

Henderson hopes that the working group can fix on one preferred option - “that’s cleaner” - but didn’t rule out multiple preferences.

“I’ve got an open mind,” said Henderson.

From there, he expects things to move “quite quickly”. Once the working group has decided on its recommendation, Henderson will produce a briefing document for the wider council. It is set to be discussed at the governing body meeting on May 30, before a vote to produce a binding decision.

“It is in a public forum,” said Henderson. “It will be a transparent process. From that vote, hopefully we get something across the line, then we go to government, we go to private partners and we have this cool project that the city really needs.”

Henderson admitted that the financial equation was the biggest issue, as there will be minimal - if any - ratepayer funds available - and central government has yet to commit.

While Henderson had hoped for an earlier resolution, he also didn’t want to be hurried.

“Any process needs to be 100 per cent defensible,” said Henderson. “It needs to be thorough and I would advantage that over speed but I do appreciate that Aucklanders want to know what is going on. It’s a world of upheaval at the moment and we need to know what the future of our city is on such a major question.”

For his part, Henderson has enjoyed being part of a high profile project but will also be happy to complete the process.

“Every barbeque I went to, everyone has an opinion on stadiums,” laughed Henderson. “So it did affect my summer a bit.”

Michael Burgess has been a sports journalist since 2005, winning several national awards and covering Olympics, Fifa World Cups and America’s Cup campaigns.
 

Auckland stadium: Downtown, Waterfront or Eden Park? Deadline looming for main stadium decision​

A decision on the best future option for Auckland’s main stadium will be made next month.

It was originally due to be earlier but the timetable has been revised, due to further due diligence being done on the four competing pitches. A council working group is currently assessing the options for Auckland’s principal arena, with the aim of future-proofing the city in terms of stadium requirements - after decades of debate.

The working group, which was set up last September by Mayor Wayne Brown, has engaged a local consulting practice to act as independent advisors. They are not one of the big four accounting firms.

They have been charged with delving deeper into what was presented in December last year, when each proposal gave a 75-minute pitch to the working group. The advisors have met each bid team on multiple occasions.

“We’ve got someone who knows their stuff to go around and kick the tyres and talk to all the bidders,” said councillor Shane Henderson, who chairs the working group. “I can gauge the public mood as a politician but I don’t know how to run a stadium.”

“It’s important that we can get some of that expertise. Getting into the detail, the real weeds of it all. Because we have to be confident as a city that this is 100 per cent viable, that it financially stacks up, all that kind of stuff.”

Asked if he was confident that the assessors could be truly neutral - given there are connections everywhere in the city - Henderson was unequivocal.

“100 per cent,” said Henderson. “That is the number one criteria. Auckland’s a small place. I get that. So to appoint anyone I needed to be 100 per cent confident in their independence and impartiality and that is the spirit that I take as the chair as well.”

The working group has also decided to use quantative criteria, to give each prospective bid a rating across different aspects.

“It’s a tool for debate - but a very useful tool,” said Henderson.

The other councillors on the working group are Julie Fairey, Wayne Walker, Daniel Newman and Chris Darby. The panel also includes Sport New Zealand chief executive Raelene Castle, Tātaki Auckland Unlimited boss Nick Hill, Tau Henare (independent Māori statutory representative) and mayoral adviser Simon Johnston.

The four options under consideration are;

- Eden Park 2.1. A redevelopment of the historic venue, pushing the capacity to 60,000.

- Waterfront Arena Aotearoa. This is centred on a 50,000-seat facility at Bledisloe Wharf. Known as the “sunken stadium”.

- The Tank Farm. Based at Wynyard Point, with a 55,000 capacity rectangular stadium along with an 8,000 seat indoor arena.

- Quay Park or Te Toangaroa. A 50,000-capacity downtown stadium, part of a new sports and entertainment precinct at the eastern end of the waterfront.

The working group is scheduled to have its final meeting next week, together with the independent advisors.

“It will be behind closed doors - thrashing out the criteria,” explained Henderson. “This one is better for transport, this one for the environment, etcetera.”

Henderson hopes that the working group can fix on one preferred option - “that’s cleaner” - but didn’t rule out multiple preferences.

“I’ve got an open mind,” said Henderson.

From there, he expects things to move “quite quickly”. Once the working group has decided on its recommendation, Henderson will produce a briefing document for the wider council. It is set to be discussed at the governing body meeting on May 30, before a vote to produce a binding decision.

“It is in a public forum,” said Henderson. “It will be a transparent process. From that vote, hopefully we get something across the line, then we go to government, we go to private partners and we have this cool project that the city really needs.”

Henderson admitted that the financial equation was the biggest issue, as there will be minimal - if any - ratepayer funds available - and central government has yet to commit.

While Henderson had hoped for an earlier resolution, he also didn’t want to be hurried.

“Any process needs to be 100 per cent defensible,” said Henderson. “It needs to be thorough and I would advantage that over speed but I do appreciate that Aucklanders want to know what is going on. It’s a world of upheaval at the moment and we need to know what the future of our city is on such a major question.”

For his part, Henderson has enjoyed being part of a high profile project but will also be happy to complete the process.

“Every barbeque I went to, everyone has an opinion on stadiums,” laughed Henderson. “So it did affect my summer a bit.”

Michael Burgess has been a sports journalist since 2005, winning several national awards and covering Olympics, Fifa World Cups and America’s Cup campaigns.
Any idea how many bids are dependant on central govt contribution?
 
Any idea how many bids are dependant on central govt contribution?
And that’s the problem….. we’re shown pretty pictures but have not been given a lot of information on how it will be funded. We’ve got no idea as to how much money could be required by central government, local government or a private consortium.

Also, a private consortium will want to be able to have as many concerts as possible there as far more revenue is gained via concerts than sporting events. If they can’t get enough nights when concerts will occur, that will stall any stadium.

The problem with a private consortium is the same as with the EPTB…. when the stadium needs upgrading, where’s the money going to come from.

Council doesn’t have the money, central government doesn’t have the money….. it will only go ahead through private funding. But, because we haven’t learnt from the past, we’ll end up with another Eden Park… a National Stadium privately owned.
 
And that’s the problem….. we’re shown pretty pictures but have not been given a lot of information on how it will be funded. We’ve got no idea as to how much money could be required by central government, local government or a private consortium.

Also, a private consortium will want to be able to have as many concerts as possible there as far more revenue is gained via concerts than sporting events. If they can’t get enough nights when concerts will occur, that will stall any stadium.

The problem with a private consortium is the same as with the EPTB…. when the stadium needs upgrading, where’s the money going to come from.

Council doesn’t have the money, central government doesn’t have the money….. it will only go ahead through private funding. But, because we haven’t learnt from the past, we’ll end up with another Eden Park… a National Stadium privately owned.
I suppose council must have some indication from the ministry about govt funding for the proposals, or they couldn't make informed choices.
 
I highly doubt he can do either
What is needed isn’t just to look at the bids but to look at how future costs will be met under a private consortium (PC) for capital expenditure. They need to look at what has occurred overseas when a PC is no longer making enough revenue for what capital expenses are required for repairs, maintenance and upgrades.

In some cases, the consortium will “gift” the stadium to the city as the cost to upgrade it is no longer commercially viable for the PC. Especially in the case of a downtown stadium in Auckland on leasehold land, there’s no value in the land for the PC is they’ve never owned the land it’s built on. No one else will want to take it on. It will just get extremely messy…. and costly for the council and ultimately the rate payers.
 
And that’s the problem….. we’re shown pretty pictures but have not been given a lot of information on how it will be funded. We’ve got no idea as to how much money could be required by central government, local government or a private consortium.

Also, a private consortium will want to be able to have as many concerts as possible there as far more revenue is gained via concerts than sporting events. If they can’t get enough nights when concerts will occur, that will stall any stadium.

The problem with a private consortium is the same as with the EPTB…. when the stadium needs upgrading, where’s the money going to come from.

Council doesn’t have the money, central government doesn’t have the money….. it will only go ahead through private funding. But, because we haven’t learnt from the past, we’ll end up with another Eden Park… a National Stadium privately owned.
If we have concerts at a waterfront stadium, will they have to shut down the sound every time a dolphin swims past?
 
At the moment, aren't they just debating what the preferred option. The financials would be figured out afterwards. Well that is my understanding from reading some of the articles. As that comment has been mentioned.

So how much detail are they going into with this?

Will it work in the desired locations?
Those are pretty pictures?
How many or type of events they see it being used for each year?

It would be good to see more details on the designs for some of the city based options. I'm more in favour of a central city based stadium that is the correct shape. The public transport should all be designed to get people in and out of the city.

My fear the other options will be exciting but too hard and we will get Eden Park worked on again. They will come back for more money again at some point and the cycle continues.
 
At the moment, aren't they just debating what the preferred option. The financials would be figured out afterwards. Well that is my understanding from reading some of the articles. As that comment has been mentioned.

So how much detail are they going into with this?

Will it work in the desired locations?
Those are pretty pictures?
How many or type of events they see it being used for each year?

It would be good to see more details on the designs for some of the city based options. I'm more in favour of a central city based stadium that is the correct shape. The public transport should all be designed to get people in and out of the city.

My fear the other options will be exciting but too hard and we will get Eden Park worked on again. They will come back for more money again at some point and the cycle continues.
Surely the financials are a big part of the early preferred option discussion.
 
Surely the financials are a big part of the early preferred option discussion.
That was just a comment in one of the articles about them looking at the options. I may have misquoted it but I remember reading thinking it was weird they could choose the best-looking or biggest stadium and end up with something they can't finance. It would all end up as a waste of time.

Every business decision I've been involved in where there are multiple options typically involves comparing the costs of each or if they fit into the allocated budget.
 
Back
Top