Stadium extras to cost in millions

.. but conveniently touted as frenzied claims from the doomsday (aka realists) club. I enjoyed the bit that says the stadium stands gloriously before us. I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder there, and I know what most think. I have the misfortune of having to go past it from the seaward side from time to time in my job, with mostly tin with a few small slit windows, it looks like a huge multi level prison. I've seen more eye fodder in forbidding looking old Soviet type apartments in the old East Berlin sector. I'm sure the 'Milton Hilton' is of equal aesthetic appeal.

[Abridged]

I have not read through each and every comment to see how many times any particular person has posted, but that is neither here nor there. So far as I know, people have the right to express their opinions, repeatedly, if they so desire, and it is up to the ODT to decide if and when this comment string should end. That said, I have read enough of these comments to question choice of the term "frenzied hysteria" in describing reaction to this article. I would further question whether it is stadium opponents or those who pushed the project who have resorted to "outlandish claims and high school accounting" given the way the numbers shifted and changed from the original proposal up to and including the present. I was also under the impression that this new stadium included in its design costs features that are common to stadia worldwide - a scoreboard, for example. So pardon those of us in the skeptic category who find ourselves gripping our wallets each and every time an article such as this one appears.

Funkie01 You say, 'Dunedin finally has stood up to be counted.' You're right about that. Still counting almost $750m in debt, including DCHL. Heading for a billion dollars(?) with all the present councillors wanting to pour more money in for the 'embellishments'  to make the stadium work.

The same members of the doomsday club are blogging many times each with outlandish claims and high school accounting. The stadium is being built and stands gloriously before us. You can chant and conjure all you want - it's done and dusted. Feel free to twirl and circle till your sandals are worn out. It will make no difference. Dunedin finally has stood up to be counted. More power to the Stadium Trust. To the victor, the spoils.

It generally works something like this. You lash people with barbed wire, they cry out in pain, and then you call them wimps.

I suspect it's for the same reason the little kid who said "the emperor has no clothes" initially got such a hard time ....

Am I sensing a bit of negativity?

It's interesting, I think, that this whole idea of being negative in our society has become a tool for manipulation. When it first started with the Positive Mental Attitude movement in the early 60s, it was a great cry for people to take control of their mental processes and reach for their dreams. Then it became the byword of the corporate world with the view to making us 'change our attitude' towards all the losses in rights we were being forced into in the workplace. Now its a ploy to denigrate anyone's attitude that does not match and support your own.
Truth is iin the eye of the beholder. One persons meat is another's poison. But should we not look at the feedback in our lives that tell us what is OK for us? Whether something is in our interests or against it? Of course we should. How else can we make decisions that are appropriate for us?
In my opinion, and I know many will see this as negative, the stadium was foisted on us and we should still have that rate revolt beloved of STS. Here I am talking about those who agree with me. The others, of course, are free to pick up the slack and pay for it, as they are the ones who assumedly will use it.

Quite right, Michael A. The pro-stadium people are just whiners when they go on about 'Oh, you are just being negative.' It worked three years ago, but not now. They remind me of two-year-olds who throw a tantrum to get their own way and scream at Mummy to give up. I find their attitude very negative.

At least the Edgar Centre (and Moana Pool) are true community assets - used constantly by the general public for recreational health and fitness. I could understand money being spent on them and indeed, I think it should have been put into upgrading them. (What about a separate performance pool for swim training?) Unfortunately, all our eggs are in the stadium basket. I can't imagine hordes of youngsters being allowed to use the one precious rugby pitch at the stadium. It will be protected for professional rugby. On that note, I have been wondering if Southland would consider a deal to tenant it, as it is looking like they will at least be in the first division next year?

Check it out.... how much does it cost to have a commercial kitchen license approved by our city council if you are opening a restaurant? I am presuming that the DCC will apply the same standards in conjunction with the stadium.

In reply to Houses's question:

Why do pro-stadium people always roll out the "negativity card" during any discussion about this project?

The answer is that the pro-stadium people have nothing else to say. Sensible, reasoned discussion has no place in this project. The whole thing has been based on a parochial fantasy and spin. Another name for the "negativity card" would be reality.

I am able to make a passable omelette. My spouse, on the other hand, spent 23 years catering for settings of high-quality meals for 200-plus at a time, as a chef. I am able to assure 'Mikenette' that kitchen technology does not change at a rate whereby changes are rapid enough to have any significant effect on outcomes. Hence, calling upon the caterers to install (and then, on possible loss-of-contract, uninstall again), full kitchen catering facilities is a cop-out.
It's all about organisation and scheduling, plus the ability to adapt to ever-changing scenarios. In view of the fact that rugby enthusiasts' tastes do not run to much more than beer and pies, preferably chilled and piping hot in that order, I fail to see where the anticipated and supposedly justified rapid changes in kitchen and catering technologies fits into it. Virtually the only significant change in catering over several decades has been the role now able to be played by microwaves. The quality utensils now expected as of right by competent chefs have changed surprisingly little since my (French born) great-grandfather was a professional chef.

What causes me apprehension about the stadium is the anticipated avalanche of professional sports bodies which will creep out of the woodwork in anticipation of receiving the same favourable treatment as professional rugby. And, why would they not do so, when they have the precedent of the treatment delivered on a plate to professional rugby to use as 'template'? I can foresee an era, lasting for decades, where professional sports will be only too glad to flock to Dunedin to enjoy concessions paid for, in the main, by the extraction of the 'readies' to cover all shortfalls from Dunedin's ratepayers. The DCC and its minions would then be able to claim, with hand-on-heart justification, that their decision to proceeed with the stadium was being vindicated by the levels of use it enjoyed. Thus bouyed-up, our City Fathers might even feel emboldened to carry on with the next stage of the empire they seek to build by completely refurbishing the Edgar Centre, as suggested, I believe, some months ago.
My reason for suggesting a helicopter servicing facility is that that route is the only one that I can envisage where we would be dealing with big enough money to put the stadium on a sound financial footing. Any money that was surplus to immediate requirements should go towards retiring as much of the debt as possible, not embarking on further
insanely wasteful, barking-mad 'think-big' projects.

Mikenette. What a superb piece of spin that is. $2.6m for a kitchen fit-out and no one is interested. That is the reason. Not to delay things for 'new technology'. With that kind of logic, the stadium will be a technological 'has been' in no time. Quite likely, because we are only getting a shell of a stadium. Didn't you know that?

I've no problem with someone building a stadium or any other such project. Go for your life, I say. Knock yourself out.
What I do have a problem with in this instance is the funding.
If this stadium is supposed to be such a great thing then the great and the good would have coughed up the dosh and had it built long ago.
It's called putting your money where your mouth is. I see plenty of mouth about the greatness of this thing but not a heck of a lot of money that isn't from the ratepayer - the captive payer.
I'm not sure what you mean by "off the hook" - I can only think you are referring to the ORFU and their debt obligations and venue.
I certainly feel far from "off the hook".
Why do pro-stadium people always roll out the "negativity card" during any discussion about this project?
How about being realistically optimistic about it rather than trying to turn the spin from the proponents of this thing into something that it isn't?
I'm realistically optimistic that it will be behind time and over budget, a failed project rather than a failed product.
To have key components of the stadium not in scope is nuts - it's not smart thinking.
DCVL better be knocking on the door of their title sponsor for more dosh (fat chance) or going direct to the vendors for sponsored products, e.g Panasonic for the big screens - although if I was Panasonic I'd want the box renamed Panasonic Stadium before I stumped up with a screen. Too late for that now...

No, it's a silly idea. They should use the stadium to play sports and stuff.

Far from being the desire of a minority, check out the numbers of people visiting the site both by appointment and randomly catching up on the progress.
It was very smart planning to exclude those 'extras.' Technology changes rapidly so this ensures the very latest.
The kitchen fitout is an inspired concept. You want to be caterer, you put in your own kitchen.
Be as negative as you can aspire to be. Fact is it's being built and it's going to be 'off the hook'.

What an excellent suggestion. I have wondered for months if there could possibly be an economic use for this unwanted structure. While I know nothing about helicopter costings, I am sure that this use would deliver nowhere near give a realistic return, but on the other hand, it's almost certainly the best we could expect. Perhaps you could give some thought to a use for the unwanted Chinese gardens as well. The only thing I can think of would be to use it as a skateboard park. It would get a lot more use and provide much enjoyment, in a good central venue, for the younger folk.

It makes little sense to keep pouring even more money into this bottomless pit, just to save the face of the minority who think it should be finished at any price. (Pet project - you know?) We have been strung along too far already.
At this point, Carisbrook needs to be revisited as the probable venue for RWC events.
Whatever becomes of the stadium, it will always be a monument to a disgraceful period in Dunedin's history.

The imposing title of the stadium is the 'Forsyth Barr Stadium at University Plaza'. One thing which was missing, to the best of my recollection, from the document mentioned previously was any provision for the 'plaza', as the cost of landscaping was not mentioned, merely an estimate of the cost of flood-lighting the building from the exterior. Presumably then, there will be a 'plaza'. Has anyone an inkling of who is to pay for it? I doubt that anyone would be ecstatic at the prospect of having to walk across the equivalent of a ploughed paddock to reach the stadium, especially in winter, so I'd be interested to know. [Abridged]

That the stadium was being kitted out within the promised budget as a gutted out shell was no mystery to members of Stop the Stadium as long as eighteen months ago, due to their having obtained under the Official Information Act, presumably, access to a memorandum stating, with great clarity, who was to supply what in the overall scheme of things. It was obvious, even then, that this was to be no 'state-of-the-art' edifice and that they would be back with further demands, once the public had been made aware of the fact that the proposed maximum price would not see a stadium up-and-running. I long anticipated that there would be a campaign to have Dunedin people feel a collective guilt at having got the stadium within an ace of success(?) then not being prepared to contribute even more the ensure completion. In fact, I am still certain that this will be the means by which even more will be rorted from the public purse, by way of justification.
Prove me wrong.

I suggested some time ago that a realistic use for the stadium, when the oil boom comes, if ever, might be as a facility for helicopter servicing, all under-cover. My time spent in the RNZAF at Hobsonville (and Taieri on an annual basis), showed that every airfield had a 'main hangar' of considerable proportions. Helicopters will be the primary lifeline, I would imagine, to oil rigs offshore. They are usually large and require regular servicing. Of course, they wouldn't simply drop into the covered stadium, anymore than fixed-wing aircraft used to 'fly' into hangars, but would be towed in from a landing area nearby. Apart from that, it would be an edifice with few practical uses that I can see. If, as I suspect, the city is going to perpetually haemorrhage money due to running costs, the only realistic alternative might well be to mothball it to limit further losses, or at least, to keep them in check until some use is found for it. The fact that it is being built in no way justifies the means used to bring construction about.

The Colloseum was built around 70 AD, it was state of the art with wild animals and gladiators. People came from all around for the sake of entertainment and they were never disappointed. Occasionally the entertainment included city officials in the lunchtime feeding frenzy - city officials who dipped into the coffers or made decisions detrimental to the institution they were elected to represent.
We may have to convert some of those corporate boxes into holding pens for the lions and polar bears, and some of the non-existent toilets into last supper areas for some councillors.

Oh, no - mixing the polar bears and the overweight, overpaid rugby players would save money on both sides - for the rugby team and the zoo - and our new "streamlined by Darwin (TM)" rugby team would excel.

Surely they would separate the animals and the rugby players.

So your'e saying you wont be sitting beside me?

The hope is that if they were being chased by polar bears that they might finally start running fast enough to win the occasional game.

Of course it's a bad thing. $354m is the actual amount of money the DCC has to raise from somewhere to meet its stadium obligations. It's almost all coming from rates or other taxation. Much of it is going to be hoovered out of the ratepayers' pockets through rate rises over the next few years.

Really though, it's you and the guy sitting beside you who should be paying for your professional rugby stadium. $350m over 20 years is $17m/year. With 5 games a year and only 5000 people showing to games these days that means we're subsidising your seat by $680 each time you sit in it - and the same with your mate's seat.

That's an outrageous subsidy to a private for-profit business like the Highlanders. You should be ashamed to be sitting in that seat. I hope the council will raise the gate fees so that you will get to pay all the cost of what you use rather than having the rest of us pay for your entertainment.

Does running fast make you win rugby games?