400k is not bad. Great potential to build there.
Stoke is a lot smaller and has two decent sized rectangles (Stoke
City and Port Vale), so no reason not to aim high.
Mate we dont have the land or money to build another stadium we
would never get resource consent and the stadium would never get
used. If we had another stadium who would play their? Both Auckland
and Christurch as well as every city in Austrlaia has too many
venues compared to teams. Learn form christchurch what is q11 used
for now? Bascially we have one great stadium and instead of
lots of white elephants. Btw what Stoke are you on about.
I think, if the A-League is to expand the way most of us hope,
that every club should be playing at a 20-30k rectangular
venue. With rugby established and football on the rise, I
don't see why not - with cricket sticking to the ovals.
Stadiums don't have to cost an absolute fortune - a
simple one tier 'bowl', with the majority of it sunken beneath
ground level, could be put up for less than $50mill. It
only gets expensive when you go over 30k seats and
start getting artistic (see Melbourne's new planned
stadium at Olympic Park).
The Stoke I was referring to was Stoke-on-Trent in England - a
city of comparable size to Wellington which manages to support two
professional football clubs, each with a decent sized
stadium. I only mentioned it as a demonstration that you
don't have to be a huge metropolitan city in order to support
two stadiums.
