Stadium to cost ratepayers $261m

Someone please remind me which councillor staked their reputation on this stadium not costing a penny over $188 million?

No,'Max-Power', the accoustics in those venues are probably nothing to write home about either; they're merely what fans of the genre of the music being played, have come to regard as acceptable (or more likely, conditioned to paying for). Many concerts, instead of being held in 'stadia' would benefit from being held in a 'Woodstock' environment, where reverb. would be minimised. When it comes to the accoustics of concert-halls, we, in Dunedin, are lucky to have a town-hall which is right up there with the best, acoustically. And, why have I taken an interest in concert-hall accoustics? Well, it's because I am very interested in the orchestration of symphonic music, and have had to create, electronically, an environment which draws the absolute 'best' out of the instruments of 'the orchestra'. Of which, I might add, an 'ambience' of about 150 cubic-metres, with moderate 'damping' is a good starting-point (average) for a standard symphony orchestra. As they come from the computer, using 'Garritan' industry-standard samplings, the 'Horns' are unrecognisable until some 'space' is put around them and a concert 'Steinway' piano sounds more like a pub 'upright'. An environment as large as a Stadium produces too much of that 'space' and excess 'reverb.' tends to kill the 'listener-experience'; the only saving feature being the amount of that reverb. absorbed by an audience if the venue is packed. It's all going to depend on how reflective/absorptive the plastic material covering the exterior of the stadium is likely to be, and since its previous uses (eg the Beijing 'Water-cube' and Olympic Stadium) generally haven't needed to take 'accoustics' into account to the same extent as a concert-venue, your 'experts' might prove to be just as much 'in-the-dark', as we are; only they are being handsomely rewarded for their efforts.

All of this info is contained in documents on the DCC website (Under projects).

So the dozens of rock concerts at Wembley Stadium must have been a failure then? The Foo Fighters DVD I have seemed to have the roof closed.
And what about the concerts held at Etihad Stadium in Melbourne? If they were a disaster then they wouldn't have scheduled 5 AC/DC concerts there.
As stated many times, this stadium was designed by professional stadium designers who know what they are doing.
The roof is not glass by the way.

'Pukeko' mentions acoustics, and since those who have mentioned them so far seem obsessed by the prospects of pop/rock-concerts, only, let's look at those. Acoustics are subject to the laws of simple physics and, especially, the effects of signals being reflected back from surface areas, and absorbed by other materials. For a quality listening experience, there is a finite limit upon the size of the venue. Given that sound travels quite slowly in terms of wave-propagation, a venue the size of a stadium cannot exceed a certain size, before the quality of sound falls off due to its primary source having to compete with out-of-phase components directed back towards listeners. This stadium, despite the fact that it's a tiddler in world terms, is almost certainly too large to prevent this taking place, but excellent examples are heard quite regularly, when voices boom around confined spaces, (some airport buildings, for example) and announcements become garbled to the point of incomprehensibility. Strangely, the presence of a crowd in a concert venue modifies this 'reverberation' quite a bit by absorption of the sound. A rehearsal in an empty hall, sounds quite different to a concert-performance in the same venue when more than half-full. There will be those who will look to electronics to provide a solution, but, frankly, there aren't many; reverberation may be added to audio-signals, but it's hard to 'subtract'. In any case a 'sampling' system would be required to damp down 'objectionable 'peaks' and there's not much point in 'sampling' after those objectionable components have already been picked-up by multiple pairs of ears. So, the sound technicians at such a concert, can only make the best of a bad job and position their speakers to minimise problems, not eliminate them. My guess is, the acoustics of the stadium will be nothing to write home about, but given the quality of what many contemporary musicians play, there's probably no such thing as a 'good' or bad' performance, just a 'performance' and people are getting much better these days in demanding their money back, when that is not up-to-scratch. Just as an addition to the contributions made by several respondents with insider-information about the running-track. Do they ever think the stadium is likely to be taken seriously as an 'all-purpose' venue, without one? I don't. If it cannot cater for track-and-field, (or cycling), it's not 'multi-purpose' or anything remotely like it. It's for rugby, first, last and everything in-between. The city's gift to an inept union which has demonstrated over the years, an incapacity to live within its means or to keep control over its finances.

A running track, of I think eight-lanes was definitely mentioned as a draw-card for the proposed Awatea St Stadium in the initial wave of short-lived euphoria. I think the mouthpiece on that occasion was Malcolm Farry, so I naturally assumed that it was still part of the master-plan. Which, to my way of thinking, begs the question, why no running-track in a complex which purports to be 'multi-purpose'? Or, again is it true that what many have been saying all-along is correct; that this is a rugby-only facility and track and field sports (surely a potential major draw-card), won't be catered-for; nor will, realistically, be many other sports? Mind you, looking at the present state of my lawn's growth, in winter, I have another suspicion as well, but I'll keep that one to myself. Might I add, that some of the most intelligent discourse I've heard on the Stadium issue, has been via the STS web-site, as it is furtherest removed from the 'snow-job' the C.S.T. has succeeded in perpetrating on much of the rest of the city.

Ian, If you look at the DCC website and get the plans it is closer to the sideline than any other stadium in the country.
You will also note that the seats can be removed at one end creating an enclosed netball/basketball arena separate from the grassed stadium.
In response to the comments from pukeko about stands that are 9 years old (12 if you want to be exact) being out dated, they were built on a site that was completely unsuitable (becuse of height restrictions due to powerlines), meaning that the angle of the seating makes you a long way from the side line. If you have ever sat in the front 20 rows, you will notice that because of the shape of the ground you cannot actually see what's happening at the other side or at the far end.
You just need to look at the crowds - no one sits in the new stand because it is a poor design. People would rather sit on wooden benches in the Rose stand than in the railway stand.
As I have said they did the best they could with the rubbish they had to work with.
The new stadium is multipurpose, which is proven by documents on the DCC website. You can see the many versatile spaces created in the stadium. For example, it can host Rugby, League, Soccer, Netball, Basketball, Moto X, Concerts, Exhibitions, Trade Fairs, Large Shows... The plans are all there to show how it will be done. I suggest everyone read them before they comment any further.
This is a design created by the leading designer of stadiums in the world. They are the best at what they do, and it is not some hacked together stadium like Carisbrook.
While people think Carisbrook may look ok on TV (I disagree on this - compare it to the SFS, Suncorp, Stadium Australia, Skilled Park, Etihad Stadium, The Gabba, Wellington Stadium....), you simply need to look at the comments of the travelling media. They have been rubbishing it for a number of years. The players also hate it because of the lack of facilities.
It needs another $100 million to get it up to standard. Then you are still stuck with half of the stadium (railway stand and terrace) that is impractical. So in another 10 years they will want another few hundred million.

Mikenette is suffering from adrenaline surges. He has done a full analysis of the difficulties of revamping Carisbrook. He then says logic tells him that a new stadium situated next to the university would be the most exciting development in his lifetime. He also believes his rates are excellent value, and that an extra $66, or even a $100 would never be cheaper for such a stunning facility right here in Dunedin. I wonder did he hear all this through jam jars pressed to the wall, like he has heard other revelations in the past.

I have just read, somewhere, that one of a raft of specious reasons for Carisbrook being dropped from consideration, is supposed to be that the 'punters' are seated too far from the action. However, I recall, that amongst the effusive promises which spewed from the C.S.T's publicity machine some time ago, was that an all-weather running-track will be part of the Stadium's design. In fact, the new Stadium's unlimited-versatility, varsity-friendly, 'all-things-to-all-people' nature would demand that facility at a bare minumum by my reckoning. There can hardly be field-sport events these days, without track sports as well.
Therefore, the rugby field stands to be enclosed within an eight-lane running-track, surely. That being the case, rugby watchers are almost certain to be seated further from the 'action' at Awatea Street, than they ever were at Carisbrook. With netball, which has also been touted as a possible stadium event, the crowd would be even further from the 'action' yet, due to the smaller dimensions of a netball court. There's no other way of looking at it. Either there's the extra width of eight-lanes of running-track creating this extra separation from the 'action' (and I don't think any organisation promoting athletic events would countenance fewer than eight tracks these days), or someone has been stringing us all a 'line'. Take your pick.

My apologies to Fungus Pudding. I do therefore transfer my question to Max Power, What game was I watching? Oh, and besides, as last century design could be as recent as nine years ago it could be argued that it is nearly new. Like my motor car.

Carisbrook may have had new stands in its recent history but despite their appearance they are in a parlous state. Poor sight lines, supports blocking the field of vision, inadequate media facilities and other authors have related other shortcomings. The sweep of the terrace is also poorly constructed and has a limited timeline before major modifications would be required. To bring the ground forward would require a conservative 90 million dollars. The main stand would need to be built forward of where it is to account for sun block in neighbouring residences if resource consent was granted. There would be no guarantee it would. Imagine the new stands at AMI and you can see the impact they would have on the houses nearby for the circuit of the sun. Moving it forward would remove a large part of the existing terrace...the existing terrace cannot be moved back. Logically then a new site is preferable, especially one located next to the University and all its sporting facilities. Its a no brainer.What is being built on Awatea Street will give Dunedin a unique, multi-purpose stadia that will cater for the city's needs through this century. Frankly it's the most exciting development in my lifetime and as a result when I pass the site adrenalin surges through me. Right here in Dunedin we will have a stunning facility, the envy of the nation.

Fungus Pudding says of Carisbrook; "It looks disgraceful, is outdated, no one wants to go there and looks bad on TV." Huh? I must have been looking at a different game because I saw a night view of a packed -28,000 plus - stadium looking absolutely stunning, bright green grass, no mud, clean players but a poor result. So, Fungus Pudding, tell me, what game was I watching?

Fungus Pudding, I will elaborate more.
Carisbrook was designed before sport in New Zealand was professional. OK, so part of the stadium is new, but the viewing lines are terrible - you are a long way away. It was designed to give the best of a bad situation.
Yes it seats 28,000, but only a few thousand seats are under cover. To get International games you must have 15,000 under cover side view seats.
There are no warm up facilities for teams. The change rooms are tiny.
I could go on forever.
NZ Cricket refuse to use Carisbrook because it is outdated. NZRFU have indicated it is past it's use by date and will no longer get A grade test matches, and maybe only be suitable for tests against teams like Italy and Samoa.
The options are keep throwing good money at bad, or a new stadium. Carisbrook had 17 million spent in the mid 90s, several million in the early 90s. It needs almost 100 million spent on it now. How long can we keep throwing money at it?
It looks disgraceful, is outdated, no one wants to go there and looks bad on TV.

Pukeko, you are incorrect. Carisbrook does not host cricket any more as it does not meet NZ Cricket's standards. There has not been a match here for a number of years. Carisbrook is old and tired, and built for last century.