Butler goes for recount

I think that the 'fubar' or 'foobar' stadium seems to be working quite well - the rugby people understand what you mean and the rest of us get to have a quiet chuckle at their expense.

Well done HypeO.Thermia, we have our new name for it, (Superfubar Wealth Destroyer).
One has to decide if either the underlying feeling is that I must either be very influential as in individual, or more likely, part of a majority.
Seems the pulling power of the stadium must be considered to be very fragile, anyway.
No surprise when, for one example, bands have cancelled Dunedin, not enough people, and those that did play still had seats left.
Three examples I can recall, two of which I went to - Little River Band, sometime in later 1990s, only filled the Town Hall; Hot Chocolate, 2000, and there was still room in the Regent; and The University Union Hall was adequate for The Proclaimers in 1992.
The only way to get Elton John, Phil Collins Rolling Stones, Coldplay, U2 and the like would be to tell them not to play in Christchurch, but play here so that the populous of Christchurch will come down here, and fill the stadium.
I think we know what the organisers will say to that idea. Probably not much - they'll be laughing too hard.
We know of many of the other things it won't do, which really leaves it to the Oval Ball.
But just because 100 people can do marching practice or bowls in it, or hold a flower show - all of which could be held elsewhere in town - it's touted as multi-purpose. So that claim is fatuous, to say the least.
I'm not being negative as claimed by Wingy, just being plain realistic. And there's some glaring proof. In ratio, its much like using he Queen Mary 2 giant cruise ship to carry 150 people across Cook Strait when the Arahura has always been more than adequate. [Abridged]

Your suggestion, FSB, presumably stands for Forsyth Sarr Badium.
Might catch on, but I prefer 'The unwanted stadium'. It's so easy to remember. Every time you see a poorly maintained or neglected public amenity in future years - you will be reminded.

If we accept the common moniker of FUBAR Stadium, then the corresponding abbreviation would be: FU
phonetically, that just about sums it up, as far as the ratepayer is concerned.

If the stadium is to ever attract the crowds the name needs to be abbreviated.
The Sydney Cricket Ground is the SCG, Melbourne is the MCG, therefore the Forsyth Barr Stadium has got to be the FSB.
This mainly is to attract the Neanderthal followers of the oval and round balls who can quite easily remember three letters but not large words, thus would never find their way to the stadiums.
Melbourne has had to go further and shorten the MCG to the "G" to cater for the ever growing followers of the kick and giggle game that are having difficulty even with the three letters.
I think this may be the reason a new stadium was decided on. People were starting to call Carisbrook the "Brook" and thought it couldn't be shortened any further.
Or worse still, the House of Pain would have become "HOP".
There is something in that for all of us.

I found Melbourne to have plenty of other things beyond stadiums. It caters for all interests, rather than basically one. Certainly most people wouldnt think of Melbourne's defining feature as its stadiums. Melbourne struck me as being a little like New York down under. [Abridged]

Yes, the Coliseum. I understand that was a white elephant back at the time. Granted, it's now an icon, but only eons later. Maybe the ruins of the FBS might be an attraction by the year 2525. It may be of some benefit to the ratepayers then - cold comfort for today's ratepayers.

What's their population? Hmmm, something more than 120 000. I don't think that what myself or others think will make any difference - it's just an obvious fact as far the situation here goes. I await the high five.
Melbourne has stadiums, but pro rata they pour lots into other interests as well - not all their eggs are in one basket.
Not sure where the speedway comes into the argument, but that's another thing our illustrious 'multi purpose' stadium won't do. We have Beachlands, anyway.
You only need to look at what other cities about do to improve/make the place more interesting for locals and visitors alike to quickly realise what a blunder we have here.
Queenstown has scenery about them just as we do, so what did they go and do? Certainly not suck all of the town's silver and beyond to build a glass box replacing existing, perfectly adequate infrastructure.
So it's got no roof? I'm sure the average person has thermal wear, they know what the climate is like. It hasn't been an issue so far.

Wingy, do you seriously think people will decide whether to come to Dunedin based on whether Pukeko is behind the stadium?
And if Pukeko were to give up pointing out the obvious - that it's a giant ruinous folly - would the stadium suddenly become a success?
From what you say, it seems that you believe that a discouraging word will make the difference between success and failure. Or perhaps that's "a discouraging word from Pukeko" alone.
I don't know Pukeko. I'd really like to see him (or her) but only from a safe distance - this person who can cause such a huge effect simply by writing a few facts and opinions in an online forum.
What other amazing super-powers does s/he have, I wonder?  Not enough to stop Messrs Harland and Farry and the previous Mayor and Council pouring our money into the Superfubar Wealth Destroyer, but enough to make Wingy very nervous about the stadium's ability to attract other people to use it. [Abridged]

Pukeko, I think you have forgotten Rome... I don't think the FBS will stand as long though.

As for the Sydney Opera House, 99% of Sydney population have never attended. The cost to view a run of the mill Opera starts at about $NZ200. It is a financial disaster to operate.

I must admit though, the original method for paying for its construction was a State Lottery, not taxes or rates. That was until they sacked the architect - then everything hit the fan and it is still not known what the true cost was.

Another point to consider is the cost of carrying out any major maintenance on the stadium. The Sydney Opera House has just been granted
$A152m for what is termed a minor overhaul, with an estimated $A800m to be spent at regular intervals over the next 20 years.

You folk are very easy to wind up ;-)

Indianapolis motor speedway? Melbourne MCG?
I think Melbourne is pretty much known for having awesome stadiums and not a lot else? Rod Laver Arena, MCG, Telstradome.
Pukeko the stadium is getting built. You may not like it. But by not getting behind it and casting a negative shadow around the whole process you are only detracting people from coming to Dunedin to see it/use it. I will give you a high five if the stadium doesn't perform.

The Sydney Opera house was paid for by specially lottery that was run for years to pay for it. People could either buy or not buy lottery tickets. That's a far cry from being forced to pay for a 2nd stadium for a ball game out of our rates. Get real for heaven's sake.

What a visionary you are, Guadalajara. We need one of those too- a Sydney Opera House, but only grander in order to really compete with that little hick town across the Tasman.

... most distinctive, it could only be Sydney Opera House, fitting in a city for a huge population base. Much like the aforementioned Eiffel Tower, Statue of Liberty, and so on.
No stadium is a top defining icons of any city, funny enough, little more aesthetic than a large office building. Perhaps though the one in Vancouver, due to its sheer size and opening roof, might have some claim. Again, in a huge population base. Our poxy new one seats less than the one it's replacing. Hmm, perhaps one day it could become famous because it's so infamous, a financial and practical disaster, like the Ford Edsel did.

Silly me, I forgot to mention the Sydney Opera House.....
A hugely controversial, expensive, and now much beloved, white structure, beside a beautiful harbour.

One can only try not to laugh at comparing the stadium with the Eiffel Tower or the Statue of Liberty. Say, the Sydney Opera House was forgotten, and the Empire State Building. And what about Big Ben?

So, cruise ship passengers (and all other visitors) can forget all the things that have drawn them here for the past 20-plus years - the Taieri Gorge Railway, scenic wildlife, or the railway station.

No, they'll come to see another basically generic stadium - Dunedin's new icon. Yeah, right.

It was good that the stadium was not described as Dunedin's Man on the moon.

Apollo was indeed heady, adventurous, exploration, going where man had never gone before. It was at the forefront of technology.

A generic stadium replacing one that's already adequate is hardly adventurous and it's certainly not thinking outside the square. It's the epitome of mediocrity and just plain foolhardiness at an exorbitant cost.

The Apollo missions showed a real 'can do' attitude, unlike the 'can't do' attitude displayed when it was suggested a roof could be added to Carisbrook (which it didn't need anyway; all but one stand have valances).

You only need to see structures like the Taioma Viaduct on the Taieri Gorge Railway, 50m high, built in the wop-wops by hand in 1887. In this day and age, with all manner of high tech about, roofing the Brook was 'too hard'?

There's plenty of things Dunedin doesn't have that most small to medium sized cities don't have, but we have had a stadium since 1908, and in 1999 it got a heavy upgrade.

It's a true waste that millions of dollars were spent on the new stand and huge corporate block at Carisbrook, which will now be demolished.

It is just symbolic of the entire stadium farce - exuberant decadence and wastefulness. [Abridged]

There didn't appear to be much comment when Moana Pool was built, or when the Caledonian ground closed and somehow relocated to the University Oval.
Everyone wanted an Olympic sizes swimming pool that would never be used as such. There was nothing wrong with the old tepid bathes in Moray Place - at least you could get a shower or a bath there if you from out of town.
There was not a thing wrong with the Cally - it had an Olympic sized running track with a velodrome round the outside.
It was great competing there with the gentle aroma wafting across the track from the Gasworks just next door, or if the wind was in the right direction the great smell of coal smoke from the NZR engine sheds. And, you could go next door again and have a beer at the old pub of the same name - something you can't do at the University Oval.
It would be interesting to find out the cost of developing the University Oval and the terrible waste of public funds in expanding it for the one-eyed cricket fraternity, which you could fit into the No.3 tram to St Clair.
As for the Robbie Burns statue, this I consider a complete waste of ratepayer money. Other than the students placing a top hat on him during capping week, I can't think of it being of any use at all.
Again, what is the cost of maintenance for this effigy? As a child I always thought it was placed there to stop the Stuart St cable-car from hurtling down lower Stuart St and demolishing the Railway Station if the cable ever broke.
As if these money-wasters were not enough, why did the DCC close two well-known money-making ventures located in the Exchange and Octagon? I refer to the underground mens toilets, where there was a cost to use the utilities with no exception.
In the Octagon for example, staff were stationed there to ensure the money was collected, thus providing work for our citizens. There is no alternative that I can think of today.
We have been ripped off for many years now by the DCC, and I can't see that changing.

"Value" can be classified in many ways; it's not exclusively economic.

I suspect that if strict economic criteria had been applied to the construction of the majority of iconic buildings around the world, nothing would ever have got off the ground. I won't even start to go into the myriad examples.

I will however provide another, extremely tangible, example of a massive project that clearly has had no ongoing economic spin-off (in the strictest sense).

I refer of course to the Apollo missions of the late 1960's and early 1970's.

Apart from the people employed/suppliers engaged, and the economic multiplier effect as a result of this at the time, there has certainly been no economic gain from the project.

You could mount a very fair argument that the money the Americans poured into this project could have been more usefully diverted into areas such as healthcare, education, civil rights, or even a more appropriate military focus in Vietnam.

However, the sense of wonderment and pride in the Apollo programme lives on to this day and, I am sure, it will live on for a very long time. Not just for Americans, but for all citizens of the world.

Now, I am not suggesting for one minute that the new Forsyth Barr Stadium is Dunedin's "Man on the Moon". However, I'm sure you can see my point.

I have no doubt that the stadium will be a huge source of pride and enjoyment for the people of Dunedin (not just rugby supporters) for many years to come.

It's innovative, provides a huge point of difference, and at the end of the day will just look damn good when completed. It will become Dunedin's "iconic" structure in the same vein as New York's Statue of Liberty, Paris' Eiffel Tower, and Barcelona's Sagrada Familia.

I await the predictable responses...

If you can't quantify the value of something how can you decide if it's worth building - is it worth $350m? If the value you're getting for your money is $50m for example (the cost of the equivalent Carisbrook upgrade) then it's an incredibly bad deal, on the hand if what you get for your money is worth $2b then it's great value for the money (but still an incredibly bad idea if you can't afford that $350m).

Here's another way to think about it - all up, including interest and all the other associated costs we're spending $350m over 20 years - that's $17.5m/year - currently rugby gets what? 8000 seats/game? 5 games a year? that comes to $437/seat/game - is it good value for the DCC to subsidise those seats by that amount? If you're a rugby fan it's a great deal, if you're not and you're paying for it it's an incredibly bad deal. You can see why some people think the stadium is a great idea and others think it stinks.

I think we need to make the stadium user-pays - charge its customers the real value of those seats, just like any other entertainment venue - either the rugby people will get their numbers up and the per-seat costs down and the stadium will be a success or we'll turn it into a car park or a cool store or something else that makes us more money.

Aruvian - I totally understand your thought on seeing returns on rates and agree that it would be nice to see direct benefits from paying them. Alas - this is not the case in many apsects, and at times we need to look at a really big picture to understand how much of the rates we pay really benefit us. It's things like having a better economy that bring more jobs = more competition for staff = better pay.

It's also things like more people wanting to live here, therfore property prices go up. Yeah I know - who cares if you're not ever planning on leaving Dunedin, but current house prices as compared with other places in NZ (central, Nelson and big cities) are far more expensive and very hard for us to get a foot in the real estate door, should we want/have to move there. So although it's not great paying rates, I'm sure things would be a lot worse if we didn't. Hopefully the stadium, in some form or the other, brings money into the community that will somehow or the other make life a bit better for us and our children.

Wingy: Moana Pool and parks etc are core city infrastructure which cost a drop in the bucket compared to the stadium.

I doubt they lose a huge sum of money. If they did, the ratepayers would be irate, like they are about the stadium.

Hmmm, I guess the ratepayers can see the ‘slight' difference in worth.

Even a stadium is core infrastructure, and if we didn't already have one, the construction of one would be valid. But Carisbrook has - along with the other venues - served it's purpose, so we are replacing something that isn't broken.

If we are going to use Moana Pool as a comparison, and apply the same mentality, should we close and demolish Moana then build another one even though it's perfectly adequate now?

The pool is used daily, a true form of year-round entertainment. The stadium? Hardly.

There's nothing wrong with the Edgar Centre and the parks and playing fields we already have, which promote a sporting lifestyle for those who are interested.

There's really quite a list of venues, from the Caledonian to the Edgar Centre, and the various pitches about the town, so how about catering for other interests as well?

It might possibly pump a bit of money into the economy, but that's tiny compared to what it sucks out. [Abridged]

Yes, that title says it actually, even if it wasn't not meant that way. It comes at the cost of many things that could have been, and it's value is minor.

Once again, the pro-stadium brigade tries to rationalise $300 million to a city of 120,000. They try to make it sound like small change the supposedly stingy people "with gorse in their pockets" don't want to part with. Nothing is too much for rugby.

So far there's been a couple of moderate events that could easily have been held elsewhere in Dunedin, resulting in hype that the stadium is proving it's worth. Other places have been doing this without any fuss all the time.

The value comes to little, and the cost is the multitude of innovative attractions that would make Dunedin more attractive for travellers that come every day of the year, not just on a few days.

There is nowhere near enough accommodation in Dunedin, and the airport struggles with 3 Boeing 737 loads (at 150 per aircraft). You might get 300 on a charter train - that's going to fill about 1/60th of the stadium's seating.

The world isn't suddenly going to revolve around the stadium, even though those who support it seem to think it and it's main use are the centre of the universe.

The city gets along by it's heritage and scenery, so lets start by building a gondola up Mt Cargill and cable cars up High St. We could build a transport museum too, and the list goes on...

But there's no money left - things like that are out of the question. [Abridged]

How can you say the stadium's real value can't be quantified while at the same time speak of it being a 'stunning opportunity'? Excuse me, but what are the 'cultural processes' you are talking about? Sounds good, but also meaningless. What is being 'processed' exactly?

Exactly Malmac. The 'real' value of the Forsyth Barr stadium can never be truely quantified.
After a decade of operation you will still never be able to state the 'real' value it holds for the region.

It is a stunning opportunity that will bring about change to cultural processes that over time will gather momentum.
That's the big picture that many supporters understand but those opposed to it don't get, as the gorse in their pockets holds sway.

From my seat, malmac, it's all very well stating how good these events are for the economy. It sure is fine for the hospitality and retail industries, but doesn't it seem strange that is the ratepayer who funds these events that gets zilch in return? [Abridged]

I doubt China or India recouped the costs of building swimming and athletic facilites used during the Olympic and Commonwealth games (directly), and I believe Cambidge has only just managed to cover costs for the rowing champs.

But this doesn't stop them holding the events because it's the big picture that has to be looked at.

Yeah, China and India are not real comparisons but it is relative. When considering the losses of the stadium, the overall return to the economy has to be looked at.

Once the stadium is built, events will start to be booked and retailers, accommodation providers etc will see the benefits, as was the case with the $25 million (or so) the rowing champs made the Cambridge economy.

Maybe your workmates are not against the stadium. But are they for it? Or is it simply they are unaware of the downsides. The cost of the stadium is nearing $20 million per year. This is made up of the value of capital, 200 million plus at say 7.5% a year is $15 milion in interest costs, and operating expenses of around $3 million. But obviously the stadium cannot possibly earn $50,000 per day; the amount required to break-even. So how is it financed? Well special rates levied on households and businesses are around $7,000,000. That leaves a shortfall of approximately $11 million. This is the real problem. The only way the council can finance this in the short-term is by sacrificing other projects. That is opportunity cost, and why it is anti-progress.
[Abridged].

Wingy: You miss the point. A project of this magnitude in these economic times is not a harmless social investment. You forget the stadium is officially costing $200m, but it's likely to go much higher - up to $300m-plus with ongoing operating losses of up to $30m pa.

This is big money in anyone's book- especially for 53,000 ratepayers. It's simply crazy economics. It is a backwards-looking idea foisted on us by the rugby entertainment industry wanting to relive yesteryear, when rugby was king.

They are broke, and failing, because rugby simply doesn't have the same hold over Kiwis. But in this case, they are holding us to ransom with their greed.

This is a whole different issue we're talking about. Building a stadium for a professional sports team is no different than the city building a new theatre for Hoyts. Why would we do it if it didn't at least break even?

At the very least we need to be charging that for-profit team all of our costs -capital, debt servicing and ongoing running costs.

Anything else is a government subsidy that pretty soon all the local entertainment businesses will be demanding. The city should not be playing favourites in the marketplace.