Oil expert delivers harbourside warning

The hysteria is all on the other side, by the looks of it, fanatism over a stadium by the few. Anyone has rather just cause to be sour when  quarter billion dollars is being spent for so little. What décor? Good luck with the entertainment it’ll provide, you might be lucky to get a week's worth out it each year. 

The same group of "sours" is spreading tedious drival and paraniod conspiracy theories. Building themselves up to fall flat on their face come October. I find it strange how all of a sudden they are worried about the decor when they once declared never to set foot in the stadium. Anyway, now for something far more positive - I am thrilled to see the speed with which this wonderous project is gaining. When a united vision is pursued then anything can be acheived. At last - I get something tangible for my rate share that I can enjoy. Hurrah.

What stadium supporters (and often others in this rose-tinted 'Peter Pan'-besotted place) call complaining is the derogatory version of being raw and cynically honest.

Yes you're right. We need a step up in our industrial base - people who actually make stuff, who create wealth rather than just move it around.

Sadly we've been doing things like converting productive industrial land into entertainment venues - the stadium's a great example of strangling economic growth. If the city wanted to use that land to foster economic growth an R&D park right next to the university would have been an excellent plan. It would help keep the smart people who want to move out into industry local and eventually pay for itself rather than costing us a third of a billion of wasted rates.

We could have spent a tenth of the cost of the stadium on a venture fund to help start or attract new businesses into the local economy and have it provide matching venture funds to existing investors - that doubles the power of our investment and brings more money into the economy in and of itself.
Think about it - you invest $30m in 30 companies. 80% of them go belly up (that's normal) and the remaining 6 companies make something like $100m for you and create perhaps 50 jobs each locally. That's perhaps $15m a year in the local economy from your first round of investments. Do it again every 5 years .... we need to keep replacing the F&Ps as they leave.

If there's a larger industrial base, more jobs and more wealth being created locally then the non-productive service industries - the cafes, yuppie restaurants etc etc will follow. We don't need to go out of our way and have the DCC pay to create them - instead put your money into the not-so-sexy industrial base that everything else is built on.

You have repeatedly said that the ends were left off. When provided with evidence that there are in fact small vents, but in fact full walls, you steer away from your prior claims. Either provide some hard evidence that the walls have been left off, or stop whipping up unsubstantiated hysteria.

You're right, Mike Stk. It is quite amusing to compare the drawing of a building complete with lush oval trees attractively placed, and perhaps some elegant slim people strolling on the spotless paving, with the real life end result.

I don't think there's an issue with rain - what it does mean is just what's been pointing out all along - the stadium is open to the outside. There is no heating on cold nights and no cooling on hot days - the budget really doesn't allow for either.

Generally I think you take the artist's impressions with a grain of salt. They're just that - impressions - unlikely to be correct to the small details. They really represent wishful thinking on the part of those who pay for them. Not reality, just a drawing of a possible one. [Abridged]

What Dunedin has needed for many years is a 'kick-start' to the economy, something to get the city moving again. Oil exploration, especially if fruitful, would be able to supply this and, even if the period is limited to just 30 years or so as someone has suggested, that is thirty years of progress we are not going to have with cafes, bars and yuppy apartments cluttering the foreshore.

The boost this would bring to the economy, if managed astutely, could become self-sustaining, and I rather think the prospect is something to exercise the powers of a council other than the one we have presently. The last thing we want is for this opportunity to be squandered in favour of a superficially tarted-up foreshore as an adjunct to a city which caters only for the needs of retirees.

The retired, like myself, are not a powerhouse force in driving the economy, but are part of our economic future, whether we like it or not. An economy underpinned by a vigorous and prosperous earning capacity and dynamism is by far the best way to achieve this.

Unfortunately, we have a council besotted by the redistribution of wealth at the expense of the means of creating it, while promoting a pointless and delusional image abroad of a 'little city punching above its weight'. If that's what we wanted, we'd probably all go and live in Invercargill, which actually has prosperity underpinning its economy - that produced by the dairy industry.

But I don't see them queueing up to shift there, and of my many ex-Southland neighbours over-the-years, it's still the 'greatest place on the planet'. But having made their escape(s) few, if any, in my experience, have shown any inclination to move back again, so Dunedin must be doing something 'right'.

The ventilation gaps are visible on pages 3 and 4 of this document, presented to the DCC FSC committee a few days after the ORC meeting that Mikestk refers to below. You have to zoom in a bit to see them, but they are between the stand roof and the vertical wall of the main space. They're quite small, and with a rain deflector so that water won't come in. The second appendix to that meeting deals with the proposed heat modelling.

It sounds as if one would be either too hot or too cold. I wouldn't like to be sitting in the draught from one of the "ventilation openings" whether they are letting in the icy ground-level air at various places around the periphery of the stadium or if the ends are left off so the people seated at the outer ends of the seating would be exposed to wind and rain.
With any luck someone has thought this through. If we were able to see the blueprints it would take away concerns on this and other matters.
We have been told so many stories - some from the promoters of the stadium, and others from the opponents trying to interpret available information - that I for one no longer take seriously any assurances by DCC people. Words are cheap. Show us the evidence (blueprints) we've paid for.

They complain a lot in England

The ventilation changes were presented to the ORC at their meeting 12 June 2008 - but not yet to the public.

There's an easy solution to this argument - let's look at the blueprints. It's a public building, after all. We've paid a lot for those blueprints. They belong to us. Why on earth are they a state secret?

Yes, you're right - it's a list of things that should have been included in the real cost of the stadium but were quietly ignored to get the price down.

If you think about it in retrospect it's pretty unreasonable. After all, they expected the ORFU to pay for the scoreboard - we have paid them $7m for Carisbrook and they've already spent it and have come back to the council to borrow more.

Most houses have "ventilation openings" - in lay terms they're often things like windows or vents, rather than absent walls. You yourself call it "a hole in the wall". It's a fairly big leap of imagination to leap from "ventilation openings" (their words) to "leaving the ends off" (your words).
As for the internal temperature, computer modelling suggests a worst case scenario of 26.5 degrees on a hot still day. The ETFE roof has the same to slightly better insulative properties as double glazed glass, so presumably it will be at least a little warmer than outside/Carisbrook. It is also the insulation properties that should prevent moisture from condensing on the roof surface and raining back down.

If you google "ETFE", you'll find that ETFE isn't glass or anything resembling glass, but a very thin plastic. It is one of four compounds sold as Teflon. It is already in use on things such as the Eden Projects biodomes in England, and rain is sufficient to clean it, because it is very slippery. Sometimes stubborn stains require actual cleaning, but that is perhaps every 3 years.
As to why Boeing and Airbus aren't using it, perhaps the speed difference between a jet and a stadium might have something to do with it. Also, ETFE punctures reasonably easily (but is easy to repair with ETFE tape), which probably makes it more suitable for roofs than airplane windows.

This is an old list of exclusions from pre-GMP days is it not? Actually, from the quantity surveying peer reviews. Nowhere does it state wholesale omission of stands (or concrete slabs with walls, depending on one's point of view). What it does refer to is some form of structural ventilation both through 'holes' and possibly through mechanical means. Although it is hardly a fool-proof method, observation of design renders would seem to show that the Eastern and Western ETFE walls will not descend entirely to foundation height but instead will have a gap of approximately 10-15 feet presumably for ventilation, protection of the ETFE surface and to allow wider access on to concourses.
Re 'the exclusions', quite a few of these items no doubt will find their way into the finished stadium either through use of the project contingency or through operational expenditure by DVML.

There are several - a quick search found the CST's document "attachment J" which attempts to explain explain away what they didn't count when they figured out the lowball cost of the stadium - you know stuff like "interest: excluded, depreciation: excluded, scoreboards: excluded, cable fit-out; excluded, ticketing: excluded etc etc". This document explains that rather than springing for triple layer EFTE to control heat build up they will be using "mechanical venting" - in other words, a hole in the wall.

It's pretty much common knowledge around town there's no plan for heating or cooling the stadium. They're not building a heating or cooling plant - though I'm sure the enclosed suites will be nice. In the summer it will be a greenhouse and with that clear roof it will freeze in the winter on a frosty night.

Really, at this point there's no point in the blueprints being a secret, nor any reason for the CST's expenditures to be secret. After all, they have nothing to hide, right?

There has been no announcement that the 'ends' will be left off the stadium. Stakeholder reports to council make no reference to it; councillors on other websites have stated they are not aware of any substantive design changes since the contract was signed; piles have been put in place for the eastern stand. The University's building still forms a wall for the western stand. Perhaps you would provide a direct quote to back-up your claim?

The business over the Queensland stadiums losing million is fact (which continues to be ignored, by the look of it) not a weird and wacky theory.

I haven’t seen any posts that talk about global warming on this thread. Remarks like the stadium takes pride of place in the Dunedin vista say it all. I’m sure next year onward all the cruise ships will offer offshore excursions to see the stadium - the elegant buildings and all else scenic and pleasant to the eye will pale by comparison.

I’ll down a Tui ale and consider their advertising catchphrase yet again, musing at the myopic, radical mindedness of the few who think all else in Dunedin should basically be tossed aside and that this monument of arrogance will somehow be the city’s crowning glory.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and there are a few who like it. Which would be fine if the mainstream were not thought of in derogatory terms for disagreeing.  I think $300-odd million is rather good grounds for disagreement , set against it's limited use and the fact we already have a stadium.

But they wouldn’t care so much if the rest of the city was not going to suffer to fund this. An example is the comparatively small amount required for  the Regent - a real asset, but that’s given a different set of rules.

The grounds for stadium opposition are common sense, since money doesn’t happen to grow on tress. 

I’m glad I’m about to leave for England, for a while at least. It’s somewhat more cultured and outward thinking, not just pulling out all stops for something like rugby. It caters for all walks of life and interests on a more equal playing field. Especially for those of a more creative mind than ball-chasers and those sitting watching it.

When a person looks back to days spent here, you really come to realise, in cases like this, you were in the thick of some mediocre form of conservatism, an image that will now never be shaken off.

Heads will shake when they consider that frugalness and buraeucracy were always been a blockade to good innovative and creative ideas here - until it came to building a stadium.

Then they will always ask “Was that the best they could come up with for such a huge sum?”

Um - the 2-page propaganda spread wasn't news so it's not in the online edition of the ODT - unless the entire world has started getting the ODT delivered it's hardly been announced.

It was announced last year that they had to leave the ends off of the stadium because there's no ventilation and the expensive suites up the top would get too hot - it will be tough for the rest of you. If you think it's otherwise show us the plans.

2010 it may be, but somehow I don't think anyone has yet invented glass that somehow can clean itself, unless each pane comes complete with a squirt nozzle and wiper, much like cars have had well before 1960. Oh well, some detergent company will do well out of us then. We don't have hovering/flying cars yet, just as we don't have magic glass that can self-remove dirt, and other types of clear material that do not craze. Airliners still use perspex, be it a new Boeing 787 or a 707, or indeed supersonic fighters like an F-18.

Maybe no-one's told Boeing and Airbus that there's a new superior efte glass out, and ahead of machines that fly 9+ km high at 9km per minute, Dunedins white elephant is getting it. A likely story.

ETFE is not "self-cleaning" Nothing is unless it is being flushed with a liquid. ETFE does resist dirt sticking due to it being slippery. But wait until 5000 seagulls decide to sit on top and excrete a statement about the stadium. Let's see if that deposit is self-cleaning.

The anti's are stooping to every extreme, weird and wackey theory they can devise. Now they are using global warming as a reason for not building it. Blaming cuts to the motorway re-alignment budget on the stadium? Along with the usual "council haters" we now are having to contend with the the downright bizarre. Enough gloom, doesn't the Stadium look wonderful as it takes pride of place in the Dunedin vista. Congratulations on the marvellous 2 page spread on this magnificant asset. Dunedin Stadium, announcing to the world, we are worthy.

The stadium is not open at the ends. The roof is not plexiglass. It is ETFE, the same material used on the watercube in Beijing. It is self-cleaning. This is 2010, not 1960...

Ahh, didn’t realize it would be open both ends. A $300 million dollar wind tunne? it just gets better and better.
And as for the claims that some ‘magic’ sort of Perspex or plexiglass is going to somehow self-clean? I know from work, cleaning loco windows the night before they go on a trip, that come the next morning after the winds been blowing the right way, and there’s a slight milky film all over them, from the airborne spume whipped off the harbour in high winds. They seems to have conveniently forgotten that frigid wind funnels down the harbour rather often.

I’m sure the plexiglass on the roof will be of no better standard than what is used in airliner windows, which for obvious reasons needs to be pretty good. Having visited the odd retired, on static display jetliners, I’ve noted how the windows get crazed after a couple of years of having the sun on them.

At the end of the day the stadium will be an ongoing maintenance job by a huge team working year round, much like you get on the Eiffel Tower. Once you finish at one end you start straight back at the beginning. But that’s where comparisons end. The Parisian icon is, needless to say, a true icon, work of art and 19th century engineering genius, that also pays for itself with thousands of visitors flocking to it daily.
None of that can be said about  the money-depleting stadium, full three times a year,  with only a a handful of people the rest of the time. The Queensland ones that have only ever have incurred huge losses to the tune of tens of millions taxpayers dollars lay testimony to this.

It will probably take more than that - remember that although the stadium has a roof it's open at the ends. Retaining heat's going to be pretty difficult, especially on a cold frosty night.
I'm actually more interested in what will happen if the place ever does get close to full on a cold night - all that exhaled moisture is going to condense on the plastic roof and 'rain' back on the crowd. They may also end up with a mould problem to rival any student flat's bathroom. I wonder who gets to hang from those trusses with a mop and a bucket of bleach?

Maybe the oil industry will help bail out and subsidse the huge city debt from this thing, who knows. But like you say, it doesnt answer the question you pose to funkie01. We all scratch our heads at such statements. I figure you'd need something with the power of a Boeing 747 engine to heat the thing. Or the hot air of stadium supporters might do it, as long as they are careful not to raise the roof, though if it could float away like the money down the finacial drain being tipped into it... a nice thought anyway.

I wouldn't call a huge loan with accrued interest disposable income. and a stadium seat, with no back, no squab, comfortable, Great bargain for $300 million odd.

"The Stadium fits this requirement on all levels."
Hmmm, speak for yourself and a scant few others that are all for it.

Most  could think of hundreds of much higher flying forms of creativity and entertaiment in a mulitude of ways for somewhat less than that sum of money. Ones, I might add, that won't dog the rest of the city for decades to come.

Funkie 01 , this city needs a boom of some sort, oil or not, so that there are people with cash to afford to go to events at the stadium. It sure isn't me - I'm on a low, fixed income but my rates and other costs keep rising. Whatever happended to the private funding for the stadium so ratepayers would not be affected?

With disposable income comes expectations for entertainment and comfort for the modern era. The Stadium fits this requirement on all levels. Oil boom or no oil boom.