Stadium to cost ratepayers $261m

I expect all those in favour said it wouldn't cost a penny more. But there's an ever increasing list of words and descriptions of demeanour that are lost on them, and accountability is certainly one of them. Promises and of course democracy of course two other lonely words around the core of the current council... the list could go on.

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.

mikenette says the stadium will be "the envy of the nation." If this was to happen, first the nation would have to care - which they don't. Secondly, even if they did care, who is the beneficiary of this envy - Our ego? Our vanity? Great - the whole city pays $200m so a few people can go on an ego trip. It seems the critical financial decisions for Dunedin ratepayers are now made by the ORFU. Every stadium decision for three years has been a massive financial benefit to the ORFU, and a massive financial loss to ratepayers.

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

What exactly is the required height of the stand, what is the location of the additional houses that would be shaded, and how many houses would be involved?

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.

Not designed for other sports - I don't think they have plans to lay a running track.

Well, F1 is at least high speed and exciting, with impressive technology and skill thrown in to add to the lustre. Singapore did well from hosting F1 last year. The $66 figure is more spin then the maximum rpm of an F1 car's engine. The price increases by all these extra millions, once you include the add ons, it's around $300 million, but somehow the figure remains at $66, clearly 'rabbit plucked from a hat' style calculation. Now that the ‘guaranteed price’ has escalated so much, and all the other known falsehoods surrounding this, the $66 is just a joke, unless they are growing money trees in there as well, after all, where's the extra tens of millions to come from? Imagining the other city projects starved to build this thing, other lion sized portions of the rates sum will be used, a figure to remain disclosed. So, the changing rooms at The Brook are too small for our golden boys. One of the trivial gripes of The Brook. Well, if they really can't make do with those facilities, (they seemed to have coped so far, and just getting fussy) it would be easy and logical to build new ones, there's a ton of room still available. What would that cost? $100 000 vs $261, 000 000. Then the cost could be levied in tickets. For all that needs done at the Brook, its like having a rarely used, well maintained car in good nick that one day blows a fuse or perhaps busts a radiator hose, but rather than fix it, it's sent to the scrappers and buy a new one – all on someone else’s money! I was talking to a workmate today, who is pretty clued with acoustics, and he said the stadium that size, of glass would be no good as an amphitheatre. Sound is meant to encirculate only around the sides but with the giant glass roof, the sound from, any alleged rock concert to be held there will bounce and reverberate into itself. No one’s thought of that yet, or chosen to ignore that. How many mega sized international rock concerts have we ever seen in a roofed stadium anyway? I rest my case. Takes us back to square one, it's no more than a rugby stadium. Any other tiny uses to justify it being ‘multi purpose’ in the being 'in between times', like using a 747 sized hangar to garage the family car.

I will be extremely surprised if the Awatea St stadium incorporates an all-weather 8-lane running track.

Ian. You should perhaps pay a little more attention to the 'other side' rather than believe point-blank all that is coming from the STS and friends......you are a long way off the mark. It is readily available information that the stands are going to be significantly closer to the field of play than even Westpac and Hamilton (that would make the seats a long, long, long, way closer to the action than what is currently available at The'Brook (unless you're the Touch Judge). There is no running track between the field and the stand(s). And Netball and Basketball (amongst many more sports and events) can be held in a temporary 'arena within the stadium' at the Eastern end (I understand that it will seat around 5000 people). Views of the action in the new stadium will be 300 times better than The 'Brook.......... fact.

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.

It sure doesn’t take much to excite some people, appparently. A real adrenalin rush like riding roller coasters in theme parks, (one of those would be a ‘tad’ more innovative an idea for Dunedin) or maybe an aerobatic flight would put them in system overload. Well, thats fine, whatever turns you on, but don't expect everyone else to pay through the nose for it, nor think it should be shoved down everyone else's throats. Something as dull as a stadium, in the eyes of most, is as exciting as watching dark grey clouds pass by, accentuated by the real cost of it, to the city and other projects. The only 'wow factor' of this supposed ‘multi purpose’ thing is the escalating cost and the grand scale ignorance and arrogance of the local body who continue to pile drive the ever increasing debt.
No cricket, so we aren’t ahead of the Brook there. And at least, it could hold moto cross. ‘Multi purpose’ is a phrase nothing short of grasping at straws to make it sound more palatable to everyone, it's basically as phoney as the guaranteed $188 million cost.
Bands, well, Little River Band and Hot Chocolate played here a few years ago here, adequately filling the Town Hall and Regent. We still wait to see where all the extra people would come from to fill it, if they think they’ll come because it’s there. In the Regent or Town Hall you have ‘mod comforts’ called seat squabs, which even have proper backs, which the stadium won’t have. And if in winter, you don’t need a heater with the output of a jet engine to heat the place up. Needless to say also, Regent and Town Hall have character, adding ambience to the overall experience. The Brook would be adequate for any possible larger concert. I went to the Eagles concert in QE2, Christchurch and it rained, but that didn’t stop the music, and with the electric atmosphere there, I hardly noticed it was raining anyway, I dried off after. And I didn’t mind the concept of travelling up there either, it made for a short break away. With ever increasing competition via new airlines, it’s a no brainer that the better idea than wasting a mindblowing astonomical sum of money for a fringe few bottle hurling, booing rugby louts, and if you're lucky, a small concert now and then.
Airports, like Carisbrook sometimes became a little outmoded, and the obvious answer is to modify it to suit, not build a whole new one. (well, the stadium must be costing more than a medium sized airport being built brand new). That’s where the comparison ends, for an airport is in full use daily, unlike the stadium.
How can 9 year old stands be already parlous, or is it just some fashion fad, where we have to ‘re-image’ every few years? Envy of the nation? Laughing stock more like, especially in things like the state of things like public transport service, and putting a stadium before all else that actually does, or would count. Give us a break.

A stand the height required would shade way more than that row of houses you are talking about.

A race track is hardly comparable to a multi-purpose facility that will house most of our region's sporting bodies, centre of excellence and a university sports centre. What seems to escape you guys is that while you sit and prophesise doom the CST and university are busy negotiating tenants, designing buildings and putting this major project together. As for stealing...I believe our rates to be excellent value and for a further $66.00 or even a further $100 it will never be cheaper. I want to see the benefit of my rates in my lifetime and I believe I am going too.

I think the ORFU bought the houses in question so that they wouldn't complain about Carisbrook - I know someone who lives in one - not complaining is written into their lease. So that's not a real issue. In fact now the city's going to be forced to buy those houses from the ORFU as part of the bogus Carisbrook purchase. You do know that $90m is a lot less than $340m right?

Mikenette, it may be the case that we end up with a stadium that is "the envy of the nation" (transport access and behavior issues with the location aside). However, why do you feel justified in stealing a ballooning amount of my money to build it with?

Your logic is simply flawed: Can I also expect rate-payers to fund over 95% of a Formula 1 track that's "the envy of the nation" on the same basis that our current facility is inadequate (indeed it's non-existent!)?

Sorry Calvin, but I, Fungus Pudding, said no such thing about Carisbrook. In fact I was pointing out the stupidity of replacing this excellent venue in my reply to Max Power. Having spent most of the last test watching the crowd and the grounds, rather than watching the game, I couldn't help wondering how the new grounds will handle such a crowd pouring in and then exiting the grounds anywhere near as well as Carisbrook. I watched the traffic flow before and afterwards, and noted the excellent parking North, South, East and West of Carisbrook. Such access and parking to Awatea St will be severely restricted to those who do not wish to arrive by boat. I have wandered around during the daylight hours when the grounds are abandoned and scratched my head wondering what madness has possessed those who consider this facility needs to be replaced. Please read my original posting.

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.

Carisbrook has a new railway stand, new terraces, new corporate boxes, new pitch and drainage and new lights - all within the last 10-15 years. One or two more stands and it will be completed. And that would solve almost all the issues above including the A Grade tests. But spending $200m on a new stadium will still not get A grade tests - the new stadium is too small as it has a maximum of 30000 - while Carisbrook has held up to 42,000 spectators. Or you can bulldoze tens of millions of dollars of new infrastructure, that just last week hosted a very successful test with no complaints. Your last comment was revealing - it "looks bad on tv" More proof that the new stadium is primarily a vanity project. Its main purpose is to massage egos. It won't stop plummeting rugby crownds an a plummeting bank balances arcross the city -average cost over $9000 per house.

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?

Well said, Fungus Pudding, grass is grass. Anything is said to justify the ‘multi use’ rugby cathedral, no matter the price, apparantly. If it hits 5 million it will, in the eyes of some, still be an asset. Rugby has been elevated to godly status, it seems. Hmmm, where to put the altar denoting the city being sacrificed…
The Brook's 'tired' grass is encompassed with a hotel sized, five story lounge and a long covered terrace, which, as you mention is only 9 years old. I don't really care for cricket either. But whatever the case, if Carisbrook is already classed as old and tired for it’s insignificant and very occasional use, then, by comparison (scrabbling for examples, no shortage) the hospital, built in 1980 must be really antiquated. However, as that’s got nothing to do with rugby, it’s apparently not important. Especially if CST getting 15 million taxpayers dosh and the struggling healthcare nothing, is anything to go by.
You think of how various organisations about the city, or indeed the country struggle with their often outmoded facilities, then by comparison, the facilities at Carisbrook, for just a few games of rugby, would be the envy of most. These rugby people are never satisfied, and as we saw recently, most are just a boorish mob that hurl bottles and trash their environment anyway, all over a silly game of rugby. Sad. So what on earth are we doing kowtowing with hundreds of millions to this brigade for? That puts it in perspective, pretty mind blowing, needless to say. I travel past Carisbrook by rail often, and from all I can see, it's very tidy. Even the oldest stands were apparently built in the 1970s, and clearly adequate for their purpose. If they think it’s run down, well, perhaps they should respect it more, no doubt the wear and tear from a few uses per year must be accelerated by vandalism, and sheer lack of respect for property, as well demonstrated by rugby foamers, like we saw 2 weeks ago.
The only thing they might want to do is cover the remaining stands on the Burns St side with a verandha - a few hundred thousand dollars that they can pay for in ticket sales. User pays.

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.

Max Power tells us that Carisbrook is old, tired, and built for last century. I find that hard to swallow. Ground is ground and if it was suitable for kicking a football around 100 years ago, then it will be now, and for the next century or two. As for the improvements, nearly all the development is just nine years old. So if such expensive structures only have a life of nine years before they are obsolete, why is the council spending $160 million or so on a replacement?

And this is exactly the crux of the matter it has not been on their website nor the DCC site and when I took myself off to the stadium committees offices over by the gym to meet with one of the executives to get better informed over the "actuals" of this, even he seemed bamboozled.

I pointed out that the costs had not been up to date on the website that they hadnt been updated since 2004, so then he presented me with the updated version of 2006 and that, people, was what was presented to me in Febuary 2009 the kind of business operation that has been structured for this project smells like the hospital board fiasco.

Have a town hall meeting and present a balance sheet that makes sense and above all tells the whole story. Citizens demand it.