The Auckland Stadium Question

Footy_Fella

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/545900/neither-new-stadium-or-eden-park-upgrade-viable-advisory-staff

Looking pretty bad here 

I had thought the Quay Park stadium didn't need any public money. Seems that was very very wrong.

Hopefully for now Council decline both proposals to give the Quay Park backers some more time to try find a white knight private investor. But is investing in stadiums even a thing?

From what I read the often quoted comparable BC Place in Vancouver - similar sized city, downtown semi industrial location etc - which holds over 200 events per year of various size, makes money as a going concern. But then it was built 40 years ago (1983). Construction costs have probably quadrupled or more since then.

NO new stadium is great news. NZ councils in general are now financially stressed. We supposedly live in a "free market" economy. Well if the business case stacks up for a big new stadium then "the market" should pay for it. If the All Blacks need a 60,000 stadium then let them help pay for it. Its not up to Rate payers. Mt Smart functions as home for the Warriors and AFC. It also doesnt have consent issues for concerts. If any new stadiums get built in Auckland then its up to private consortiums like Foley to fund it. The era of city council funding new stadiums is over. 

And it was a dumb idea,,,

Doloras

Jessie Merino

Both proposals, Eden Pk (stage2) and Quay Pk (costed at 1bill plus) have been deemed by Council advisors as financially unfeasible without public money. Which the Council have no wish to provide. Sauce RNZ midday news.
Back to the drawing board.

The fix is in for Eden Park, I'm disgusted to say. They can build that into a monstrosity in stages, and "stages" is how you get anything done. (The reason Light Rail in Auckland failed is they tried to "do it once, do it right", making the upfront costs eye-watering.)

Would like to know how much we have spent to be told that for a stadium the public need to fund it.

It was bloody obvious from the beginning!!

Apparently feasibility studies were funded by the consortiums themselves to be fair. I wonder if central govt would ever do anything. I get old boy club vibes from Luxon and Bishop which wouldn't be good here. Seymour also in EP's pocket.

Highly doubt central Govt would provide any funding unless NZ had won the hosting rights to a major sporting event like the Rugby World Cup or FIFA's big dance (co host with Aussie, Indonesia or whoever).

So if the mens football World Cup ever did come to this part of the world, expect to see the whole stadium debate rehashed. Not that it's ever really going to go away.

I am so tired. Why can no one look further down the road than a few years. We have worse long-term thinking than neolithic farmers.

Footy_Fella

I am so tired. Why can no one look further down the road than a few years. We have worse long-term thinking than neolithic farmers.

Stonehenge and Eden Pk have quite a few things in common. Stonehenge probably got more use though. And presumably was fit for purpose.

Footy_Fella

I am so tired. Why can no one look further down the road than a few years. We have worse long-term thinking than neolithic farmers.

easy asnwer to that is the 3 year election cycle, noone wants to spends their voiters money ona project that will take more than their term to be completed.

Slight thread detail but shame on Auckland Airport for not having anywhere obvious you can get a milkshake, though everywhere sells flat whites. Seriously, in every suburb too. Waay too many flat whites. The servos are decent enough. Try a launderette or a soup shop or something.

The airport also lacks anywhere where you can buy a Chris Wood Nottingham Forest shirt despite him being more famous than any current All Black this season and probably the ABs brand, at the very least, given the attention on Forest’s table position and speculation about Forest’s history and revival. Look at the UN that his teammates are at the very least- Nigeria, Sweden, Wales, Serbia, Brazil, Spain…

Another Auckland design award is the walkway at the International Airport car park directly behind parked cars which is just a green strip of road in the parking place so the 4WDs can’t see kids or short folk. Most places requiring boot loading have raised walkways for trolleys etc behind the cars. 

It’s likely to be Eden Park, with ratepayers on the hook in perpetuity. 

Though we’ll see…every now and again some slips a CRL in that might just be handy in the long run and we’re shocked. 

Instagram spat between EP and Auckland Stadiums

https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/audio/maurice-williamson-auckland-councillor-on-the-stadium-debate/

Maurice Williamson claims to have an open mind but says he love the 'history' of EP. Also claims that a waterfront stadium is pointless. Quay Park isn't on the waterfront.

Can anyone explain to me why Auckland needs a upgraded Eden Park, or a new big stadium? I can't help think this is all a set of solutions before a problem statement.

Reality is big stadiums get used once/twice a year for All Blacks, and don't feel commercially viable. People stay away from stadiums in the pay tv era.

Jessie Merino

Footy_Fella

I am so tired. Why can no one look further down the road than a few years. We have worse long-term thinking than neolithic farmers.

Stonehenge and Eden Pk have quite a few things in common. Stonehenge probably got more use though. And presumably was fit for purpose.

It's a magic place, where the moon doth rise with a dragon's face.

zonknz

Can anyone explain to me why Auckland needs a upgraded Eden Park, or a new big stadium? I can't help think this is all a set of solutions before a problem statement.

Reality is big stadiums get used once/twice a year for All Blacks, and don't feel commercially viable. People stay away from stadiums in the pay tv era.

Stadiums aren't just used for sports. International performers need big venues.

Doloras

zonknz

Can anyone explain to me why Auckland needs a upgraded Eden Park, or a new big stadium? I can't help think this is all a set of solutions before a problem statement.

Reality is big stadiums get used once/twice a year for All Blacks, and don't feel commercially viable. People stay away from stadiums in the pay tv era.

Stadiums aren't just used for sports. International performers need big venues.

Why would/should council subsidise the building of a venue for international performers?

Because of the spinoff benefits of lots of people coming to down and spending money?

zonknz

Doloras

zonknz

Can anyone explain to me why Auckland needs a upgraded Eden Park, or a new big stadium? I can't help think this is all a set of solutions before a problem statement.

Reality is big stadiums get used once/twice a year for All Blacks, and don't feel commercially viable. People stay away from stadiums in the pay tv era.

Stadiums aren't just used for sports. International performers need big venues.

Why would/should council subsidise the building of a venue for international performers?

It’s an age old argument. But sadly yes I think Quay Park needs to somehow be privately funded to happen. EP being noise restricted to only 6 concerts per year is bad for Auckland 

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/104222066/ed-sheeran-pumps-almost-38-million-into-dunedin-economy

There is one venue in this city which *does* have a chance of being privately funded - the Western Springs redevelopment - and the local NIMBYs are retaining battalions of lawyers to stop it happening

Doloras

There is one venue in this city which *does* have a chance of being privately funded - the Western Springs redevelopment - and the local NIMBYs are retaining battalions of lawyers to stop it happening

I find this whole stadium thing really jarring - as a football fan I like the idea of the Western Springs concept but for me it's not in the greatest area and as a sports fan it doesn't solve the other issues.

For me the issues are:
- Trying to combine rugby/football/league and cricket into one stadium
- No suitable cricket venue for test matches in Auckland
- retaining regional training facilities for these sports

Accepting that there isn't a lot of money around as much as I'm not a fan Eden Park if it could be converted to have seats tight around the playing area for rugby/league/football should be a cheap solution to provide a large venue for the top tier of games for these codes.  Mt Smart is still fine for a bunch of the other games for Auckland FC and Warriors etc.

Cricket is then the issue - looks like Auckland Cricket will go to Colin Maiden which will also have a hockey turf installed and become a  regional training facility for those sports which is ok - Aces and Hearts games at CMP is not really an issue.  Western Springs for me is the best place to put a concert and Cricket test venue in this scenario - might not be the money to do the full concert venue but it wouldn't be much to get test cricket there - the more grass banks the better in test cricket.  Eden Park could still hold concerts 6 times a year while we sort that out.

Leaves Auckland FC without a dedicated training base - but there is a bit of land at Waikaraka Park (both the existing fields and out the back towards the harbour) that could be utilised for a training centre - if that doesn't work I think there can be some land brought in that area somewhere to put in a field and some other facilties.  

For me if a premier stadium in the CBD is out of the question then a Western Springs boutique stadium is just adding to the mess of stadiums when Mt Smart is perfectly fine for now with a slightly upgraded Eden Park for bigger games as long as they can get seats closer to the field.

As always you raise some good points Chopah. I guess re the proposed Western Springs development, it isn't Bill Foley's (or Mowbray/Williams) job to solve Auckland's stadium jigsaw.

Their main motivation is making Auckland FC as successful as it can be.

Some local & central Govt funding was required to build both Forsyth Barr & the new ChCh Stadium. But then Carisbrook was a relic that needed demolition and of course after the quake Cantabs needed a new ground. Different in that Eden Park is still in pretty good nick. The agruments for a replacement in the 09 are different.

That restriction to only 6 concerts per year is a big loss for the city. But yes for sure there are plenty of agruably greater needs in the isthmus on the public purse than a shiny very expensive downtown stadium.

And this sort of stuff ain't wholly unique to Auckland.

Tasmanians are very split over the huge cost to them of a big new roofed edifice in downtown Hobart. They dearly want a long overdue Aussie Rules team, but the nasty AFL have insisted they build a roofed new stadium at a $1 Billion cost, otherwise no team. $785 Million to come from the Tassie Govt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed3972Yxxns

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-03/tas-stadium-scathing-independent-gruen-review/104780914

Councillors have spent the whole day debating the 2 stadium options... still no decision. Debate continues after hours... Eden Pk getting significant support; Quay Pk backers asking for a further 12 months to "consolidate their business case ". Yawn.
Sauce: RNZ Checkpoint.

Update:

Eden Park gets the nod!!!!! 17 votes to 2. 

Ps Eden Pk Trust have already been on the phone, locked in Monster Trucks for October. Just saying.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360630560/watch-downtown-auckland-stadium-or-eden-park-21-councillors-decide

An article on Stuff about it.

Council has only back stage 1 of Eden Park's upgrades apparently.

Disappointing but not surprising that the wrong decision (in my opinion) has been made once again. I thought when it became clear that the decsion in the lead up to RWC 2011 to stick with Eden Park was the wrong one, that they'd not make the same mistake twice...I was wrong

I guess giving out free tickets to councillors really works!

Half a Pint

https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360630560/watch-downtown-auckland-stadium-or-eden-park-21-councillors-decide

An article on Stuff about it.

Council has only back stage 1 of Eden Park's upgrades apparently.

Disappointing but not surprising that the wrong decision (in my opinion) has been made once again. I thought when it became clear that the decsion in the lead up to RWC 2011 to stick with Eden Park was the wrong one, that they'd not make the same mistake twice...I was wrong

I guess giving out free tickets to councillors really works!

Lol, this country can't seem to do anything ambitious can it?

Doesn't Eden Park Trust also owe around $50 million to the Auckland Council? 

Personally I don't see how a few All Blacks tests and Super Rugby is going to pay that bill, but have at it. 🤷‍♂️

As above ....the council  fully lives up to my very ,very low expectations ...

Problem sadly is that with the Quay Park option sounds like would be more like $500 million owed to Central Govt/Auckland Council.

You could host the Crusty Demons 365 days of the year, and yet still struggle to ever pay that debt off. That's the cold hard financial reality.

17 votes to 2 is a pretty resounding rejection. 

My solution. 
1. Offer Xero (market cap 26billion) naming rights for Eden Pk.
2. Dig down into pitch and create a rectangular floor then put seats up to the existing seats, raising capacity plus creating a rectangular playing surface.
3. With Xero's cash build a roof so that the interior is not only weatherproof but outside is sound insulated. No noise problems so Xero Stadium free to hold concerts whenever.
Sorted.

Footy_Fella

I am so tired. Why can no one look further down the road than a few years. We have worse long-term thinking than neolithic farmers.

Rather unkind to our forebears ,,,,

Isn't one of the Xero founders a golfing nut? There are plans for a roof with EP 2.0, just not in Stage One.

Today's decision still requires Central Govt to agree to pay for Stage One at $110M. That's no fait accompli, given the current economic climate.
Try telling the folk of Dunedin with their downgraded hospital new build, Auckland is getting $110M for their sports ground.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360630560/watch-downtown-auckland-stadium-or-eden-park-21-councillors-decide

The vote went 17 to 2, with one abstention, to back stage one of the Eden Park 2.1 project, which is for an upgrade to the Lower North Stand that would see the installation of retractable seats.

This would allow spectators to be closer to the action for rugby games and cricket matches to be played on an oval shaped field.

One of Xero founders used to play for Greytown AFC when he became funemployed.

You might be thinking of one of the early stage larger investors. Either way, as a shareholder of XRO, I don't support wasting the capital on this.

(What is the kiwi obsession with roofed stadia? It doesn't even get cold here in winter)

A roof may mean unrestricted concert type events for EP? 
The max 6 event thing is currently a very major negative.

Really struggling to put all of my frustration here into words.

All quotations seem to suggest that EP won because it already exists and can be upgraded in stages. For that to be an advantage, you need to be able to demonstrate why we need a 60,000 seater stadium as soon as possible. You'd think we were hosting another RWC soon. Don't think anyone here would be too troubled with having the status quo maintained for another 5-10 if it meant Quay Park going ahead.

As an aside, it's hard not to feel like there's a category of person in this country who has no real interest in sports but are still conformist and insecure enough to make a big deal about loving the All Blacks. To this kind of person I imagine endorsing EP seems like the thing a 'proper kiwi' should do, in spite of the fact that 9/10 actual sports fan I know can't stand EP. I'm ranting but I sometimes feel like we've stacked our governance in our country with these kind of characters.

Jessie Merino

My solution. 
1. Offer Xero (market cap 26billion) naming rights for Eden Pk.
2. Dig down into pitch and create a rectangular floor then put seats up to the existing seats, raising capacity plus creating a rectangular playing surface.
3. With Xero's cash build a roof so that the interior is not only weatherproof but outside is sound insulated. No noise problems so Xero Stadium free to hold concerts whenever.
Sorted.

The problem is Eden Park will never do a decent upgrade such as what you are suggesting as they don't want to lose cricket - so no matter how they upgrade it, it will always have too many compromises to try and accommodate both cricket and rectangular sports pitches

Footy_Fella

Really struggling to put all of my frustration here into words.

All quotations seem to suggest that EP won because it already exists and can be upgraded in stages. For that to be an advantage, you need to be able to demonstrate why we need a 60,000 seater stadium as soon as possible. You'd think we were hosting another RWC soon. Don't think anyone here would be too troubled with having the status quo maintained for another 5-10 if it meant Quay Park going ahead.

As an aside, it's hard not to feel like there's a category of person in this country who has no real interest in sports but are still conformist and insecure enough to make a big deal about loving the All Blacks. To this kind of person I imagine endorsing EP seems like the thing a 'proper kiwi' should do, in spite of the fact that 9/10 actual sports fan I know can't stand EP. I'm ranting but I sometimes feel like we've stacked our governance in our country with these kind of characters.

Spot on.

I also think that those in positions of power and influence kind of get swept up in the nostalgia of past accomplishments and the history, to be brave enough to suggest or throw their weight behind something that sits outside the realms of the status quo.

I'm not against tearing down things for the sake of tearing them down. After all, history firmly has its place even in today's modern world. But anyone looking from the outside in can see this is just another monstrous addition (at great cost no less) just to keep the relative few happy and seemingly clinging on to some sense of power, because hey, they're the already established/dominant presence. Give me a farken break! Akin to slapping lipstick on a pig all of this.

Eventually down the line there will come a time when this conversation comes up again, except the cost will be 2-3 x greater. How long do we just accept the can being kicked down the road? When will people realize a grand opportunity is about to be passed over and shelved for potentially another 10-20 years? Tomorrow will be too late...

I think the fatal misunderstanding many have is that the Council can't choose to demo Eden Park and sell it. 

Also quite a few comments here about it being limited to 6 nights of concerts, that changed to 12.

Quay Park would have ended up stinging the rate payer hugely. One massive cost would have been the need to completely re route the railway. 

The real shame imo was the early ruling out of the Wynyard/Tank farm option.

pickledmyself

I think the fatal misunderstanding many have is that the Council can't choose to demo Eden Park and sell it. 

Also quite a few comments here about it being limited to 6 nights of concerts, that changed to 12.

Quay Park would have ended up stinging the rate payer hugely. One massive cost would have been the need to completely re route the railway. 

The real shame imo was the early ruling out of the Wynyard/Tank farm option.

Apologies you are correct it is now a max 12 concerts, that increase happening Dec last year. Though a fish hook in that it is a max 6 artists, so presumably only will be 12 concerts, if it's 6 back to back consecutive gigs over 2 days.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/eden-park-concerts-resource-consent-granted-for-up-to-12-gigs-a-year-from-january-2025/6NT2YY3QJ5FWRL2IOMC5IMZJ7Q/#:~:text=Eden%20Park%20has%20been%20granted,increased%20economic%20benefits%20for%20Auckland.

The decision to go with EP, because it can be done over stages, seems to be driven by spreading out the financial costs over time.

And note Stage 1 is to include retractable stands, so there should be a more rectangular shape to the ground for the football codes, and then back to some type of oval shape for the cricket.

Voting for Eden Park isn't pro rugby. NZ Rugby backed Quay Park. It was/is to include an All Blacks themed hotel. 
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/auckland-waterfront-stadium-new-zealand-rugby-backs-downtown-option-at-quay-park/IZRY7Z47OVFQ5HNCH2L44UUP74/

But a vote for EP it is pro cricket. NZ Cricket stood to be the biggest losers if Quay Park was built, and EP demolished. No cricket at QP. Sure test cricket isn't played in Mt Eden, but in reality that matters little. NZC loses money on ever test it stages in NZ, bar hosting India and the huge TV rights deals that come with that. White ball cricket over in a day or less with it's bigger crowds is where the crowd revenue is. And no ground in NZ hosts a bigger white ball crowd than EP.

What really seems to have saved EP for now, is the poor, very loose business cae put up by Quay Park's backers. It was always being reported as a privately funded construction, now it seems the numbers on that are highly questionable to the point of being flawed. That's what appears to have scared off the Councillors. 

Carisbrook was crumbling, and Lancaster Park actually fell down. Love it or hate it, Eden Park is still in okay condition. It don't need pulling down.

Auckland's best hope of Quay Park or a similar downtown stadium, could well be the round ball code. FIFA paid Qatar $1.56 Billion USD to host the 2022 WC. Though that amount pales into comparison to what Qatar spent on new infrastructure to host the WC. Estimated at about $229 Billion USD!! Insane

But the cohosts of say a Australia/NZ/Indonesia joint WC, would all get big money from FIFA. Some of that for stadium upgrades. That looms as maybe the best hope.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360630560/watch-downtown-auckland-stadium-or-eden-park-21-councillors-decide

During the meeting, Mayor Wayne Brown put forward a proposal to endorse a staged redevelopment of Eden Park as the best and most feasible option for providing Auckland with a fit-for-purpose main stadium in the future.

This is subject to the completion of a business case for Stage One that establishes a case for government support and confirmation of central government support.

Brown said nothing is dead because of this, but they have injected oxygen into one of the proposals.

“It’s (Eden Park) definitely the most feasible, which made it the best option,” Brown said.

It remains to be seen what happens to the Te Tōangaroa and whether the building would go ahead without the stadium.

“We appreciate Council’s assessment of the feasibility studies and their agreement that Te Toangaroa is technically and environmentally feasible,” the statement said.

“They also highlight the significant public benefits if delivered without public funding. Therefore the Te Toangaroa consortium will assess the feedback and will respond accordingly.”

For Eden Park, Hardy said it was technically and operationally feasible, but not financially viable without government support, which is $110 million for stage one.

For Tōangaroa, Hardy said their proposal relied on optimistic assumptions about costs and that there were infrastructure disruption risks for rail and port access.

The consortium says it would need 12 months more to strengthen its feasibility and asked for money not to be given to Eden Park in the meantime, as this wound undermine their case.

YoungHeartHM

Footy_Fella

Really struggling to put all of my frustration here into words.

All quotations seem to suggest that EP won because it already exists and can be upgraded in stages. For that to be an advantage, you need to be able to demonstrate why we need a 60,000 seater stadium as soon as possible. You'd think we were hosting another RWC soon. Don't think anyone here would be too troubled with having the status quo maintained for another 5-10 if it meant Quay Park going ahead.

As an aside, it's hard not to feel like there's a category of person in this country who has no real interest in sports but are still conformist and insecure enough to make a big deal about loving the All Blacks. To this kind of person I imagine endorsing EP seems like the thing a 'proper kiwi' should do, in spite of the fact that 9/10 actual sports fan I know can't stand EP. I'm ranting but I sometimes feel like we've stacked our governance in our country with these kind of characters.

Spot on.

I also think that those in positions of power and influence kind of get swept up in the nostalgia of past accomplishments and the history, to be brave enough to suggest or throw their weight behind something that sits outside the realms of the status quo.

I'm not against tearing down things for the sake of tearing them down. After all, history firmly has its place even in today's modern world. But anyone looking from the outside in can see this is just another monstrous addition (at great cost no less) just to keep the relative few happy and seemingly clinging on to some sense of power, because hey, they're the already established/dominant presence. Give me a farken break! Akin to slapping lipstick on a pig all of this.

Eventually down the line there will come a time when this conversation comes up again, except the cost will be 2-3 x greater. How long do we just accept the can being kicked down the road? When will people realize a grand opportunity is about to be passed over and shelved for potentially another 10-20 years? Tomorrow will be too late...

One of the problems with the redevelopment in stages of Eden Park is that although the costs are spread out - by the time stages 2 and 3 happen, we will be years down the road and inflation will have done its thing meaning they will cost a lot more than the current quotes.

I also sometimes wonder if the All Blacks active unbeaten streak at Eden Park plays into people wanting to keep it - if they lost that streak, would the nostalgia still be a strong enough pull to keep it?