https://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=48&topicid=190840&page_no=1783#3357392

To reply to this: 

Eden Park already has decent public transport options, but whatever is there would need to be increased or optimised if you were to put in high density housing (which I don't agree with, for that very reason). 

I would be in favour of keeping Eden Park, but moving it to council or Government ownership. I feel 1B for a stadium doesn't make sense when there are so many areas that $1B could be spent on to benefit every New Zealander.

New Zealand already has too many boutique stadiums that aren’t large enough to accommodate major events to allow them to be considered international class stadiums. The Wellington stadium was one of the first of these boutique stadiums to be built and was originally supposed to be 80,000 seats. But got downgraded to 35000 with a bit extra for temp seats. Now all new stadiums being built don’t support cricket and people seem to want it roofed. They tend to cost ratepayers a significant amount and the level of support for the main sport played in them, rugby, has dropped off alot. NZs largest stadium is currently Eden park and a significant amount of money was spent on it prior to a previous World Cup to allow it to be temporarily increased in capacity to 60,000 to allie it to host a RWC final. But this new planned stadium only has a capacity of 55k.  Seems ridiculously small to be considered a national stadium in a large world class city.

Considering we are already cutting what a lot of people would call core council services in the name of saving money, this not something that Auckland should even be considering for a decade. Nobody could call another stadium for Auckland a core service that tax and/or ratepayers should be funding when we are cutting funds for libraries, parks etc.

SaltyNZ:

 

Considering we are already cutting what a lot of people would call core council services in the name of saving money, this not something that Auckland should even be considering for a decade. Nobody could call another stadium for Auckland a core service that tax and/or ratepayers should be funding when we are cutting funds for libraries, parks etc.

 

Yes cuts are being made, many in areas that hurt, to avoid having to make more and bigger cuts later, so this shouldn't be a priority to spend taxpayer money on. 

If they were instead to set up a bond issue or share issue type arrangement, where people who want to be part of it outside of their regular tax contribution, can do so, that would be fine. 

The problem is going to be always, that our population can't financially support some of these things, commercially, they don't make sense.

If some sort of privately funded organisation wants to build a new stadium, have at it, I guess. Just don't expect The Public to bail it out if/when it fails for some reason. (The Public will absolutely be asked to bail it out if it fails for some reason).

Auckland rates aren’t that high compared to much of the rest of NZ and they have the population to support a world class stadium. But councils don’t seem to get good value for ratepayers by contracting out to organisations that overcharge and the perception of waste. Wellingtons water is a good example of this.  A story in the news today about another council spending hundreds of thousands to provide free coffee to staff rather than the staff going out to support local cafes is just another example of something that is not a good look and a waste of rate payer money. Councils in NZ need an overhaul imo. Maybe many of the services need to be centrally run. 

SaltyNZ:

 

If some sort of privately funded organisation wants to build a new stadium, have at it, I guess. Just don't expect The Public to bail it out if/when it fails for some reason. (The Public will absolutely be asked to bail it out if it fails for some reason).

 

mattwnz:

 

Auckland rates aren’t that high compared to much of the rest of NZ and they have the population to support a world class stadium. 

 

Our annual rates are almost equal to our household's monthly (post-tax) income. They are plenty high enough already, especially with core services being cut, and ongoing stormwater issues expected to get worse. There are thousands of Auckland homeowners who have been told the council can't afford to stop their home flooding (despite having consented building on the property), so they surely can't afford yet another stadium. (I think we have three already?)

SaltyNZ:

 

If some sort of privately funded organisation wants to build a new stadium, have at it, I guess. Just don't expect The Public to bail it out if/when it fails for some reason. (The Public will absolutely be asked to bail it out if it fails for some reason).

 

As a general rule, as a stand alone item, large stadia and arena's don't tend to turn a profit, there simply aren't enough events requiring their scale... (off course there are some exceptions to this).

This means that large stadia generally need funding from:

• Public purse (either local or central government) - Usually justified as an amenity that improves quality of life for the residents, boasts the cities reputation, and encourages more visitor nights to support the Hospo industry.
• A particular sport's team, who feel an impressive home stadium (typically dedicated to them), adds value to the overall team, and especially cross subsidies the stadium from other team operations (Many US baseball parks are an example of this).
• A extremely wealthy private benefactor.
• Not operating as a stand alone enterprise, for example:

   

  • The likes of the sky tower, where it was required to get the approvals required to operate a large casino, so the lack of probability matters little.
  • The likes of Mall of Asia Arena in the Philippines, Where the presence of an arena adds to the reputation, and generates foot traffic at a retail mall.

I think points 2, 3 & 4 are not going to happen in NZ. None of our sports teams really have the scale to justify self funding a stadium. We have relatively low numbers of super wealthy, and there hasn't been an appetite to fund large stadia in the past. I don't think there is public appetite for another large casino, and I don't think NZ has the event volume that it would be an attractive attachment for a mall operator.

Only really leaves public money, and I don't think there is appetite for that either at the moment. NZ central government has shown a clear preference for market lead solutions. NZ local governments are struggling to keep rates rises reasonable while delivering basic services, Water services are really gobbling up a lot of local government nationwide (and fair enough, it is no longer socially acceptable for heaps of untreated sewage to end up in our waterways).

mattwnz:

 

 NZ essentially has boutique regional stadiums and ratepayers in each region are paying for those. Taxpayers shouldn’t pay twice just to allow Auckland to get their own newer stadium. But we already did when hundreds of millions was spent upgrading Eden park and that should have lasted a long time

 

https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/129280978/christchurchs-683m-stadium-will-be-built-but-how-will-we-pay-for-it

"The roofed stadium is due to open in mid-2026 at a total cost of $683m, of which $200m has come from central government. Ratepayers’ contributions, spread over 30 years, will peak at an average of $4 a week this decade."

Any modern stadium is going to require some degree of taxpayer/central government investment. This goes for things like hospitals and other large civil infrastructure where local population bases are not sufficient to shoulder the cost themselves. 

cddt:

 

Our annual rates are almost equal to our household's monthly (post-tax) income. They are plenty high enough already, especially with core services being cut, and ongoing stormwater issues expected to get worse. There are thousands of Auckland homeowners who have been told the council can't afford to stop their home flooding (despite having consented building on the property), so they surely can't afford yet another stadium. (I think we have three already?)

 

I think any serious plan for a new main stadium would involve getting rid of Eden park, and selling that land for Medium to high density housing. (Being near the kingsland train station it would be ripe for development, but there might be push back from neighbors if high density was proposed).

Auckland does not need two 50k+ seat stadiums.

But given Eden park had a heap of money spent on it for the rugby world cup (and is about the size we need - can be upgraded to 60k seats on a temp basis as we did for the world cup if we want to host such an event again), it would seem a bit waste to just rip it down.

And other than limits on number / time of events (I feel central government should pass legislation to lift this restriction), Eden park seems quite adequate.

They'll go with Eden park, because the other proposal is basically vapourware,....

Buried in the report is this in relation to the costs they have "proposed"

wellygary:

 

Buried in the report is this in relation to the costs they have "proposed"

 

Actually insane to even propose a plan with all those caveats. May as well wish for a genie to magic up a new stadium too, it's as realistic as that proposal. 

GV27:

 

mattwnz:

 

 NZ essentially has boutique regional stadiums and ratepayers in each region are paying for those. Taxpayers shouldn’t pay twice just to allow Auckland to get their own newer stadium. But we already did when hundreds of millions was spent upgrading Eden park and that should have lasted a long time

 

 

https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/129280978/christchurchs-683m-stadium-will-be-built-but-how-will-we-pay-for-it

 

"The roofed stadium is due to open in mid-2026 at a total cost of $683m, of which $200m has come from central government. Ratepayers’ contributions, spread over 30 years, will peak at an average of $4 a week this decade."

 

Any modern stadium is going to require some degree of taxpayer/central government investment. This goes for things like hospitals and other large civil infrastructure where local population bases are not sufficient to shoulder the cost themselves. 

 

 Wellington did it so did Dunedin. I don’t agree with the Christchurch one having any tax payer funding, however that was actually more to do with rejuvenation of the central city after the earthquake. It wouldn’t be occurring otherwise, and the fact is that Christchurch’s previous stadium, much of it was almost brand new before the earthquakes and paid for locally

cddt:

 

mattwnz:

 

Auckland rates aren’t that high compared to much of the rest of NZ and they have the population to support a world class stadium. 

 

 

Our annual rates are almost equal to our household's monthly (post-tax) income. They are plenty high enough already, especially with core services being cut, and ongoing stormwater issues expected to get worse. There are thousands of Auckland homeowners who have been told the council can't afford to stop their home flooding (despite having consented building on the property), so they surely can't afford yet another stadium. (I think we have three already?)

 

What do you pay in rates in Auckland? Next year we will be paying around 6k and that is a town, and that is projected to increase substantially in the short term with water rating plans. And that is on a property worth about 700k. We don’t get rubbish collection or stormwater from the property.  We also pay a regional stadium levy even though I live over an hour and a half from it  and haven’t been to it in over 8 years.  I and the town get no benefit from it. Apparently one of the sweeteners with getting everyone in turn region to pay was free trains into the stadium and cheaper tickets for ratepayers but that never happened