When it comes to debating which stadium is best for which purpose in Auckland, it does appear there are as many voices as there are views.
This week, incoming Auckland Unlimited chief executive Nick Hill blew the opening whistle on another turf war by declaring the city only needs one rectangular football stadium, and it should host rock concerts as well to keep it financially viable. While he admitted to having given no thought to what it might mean for North Harbour and Mt Smart, he anointed Eden Park the winner.
Cue the vested interests in and around every major and minor sports and entertainment venue in Auckland to reavow their cases for stadia superior.
It might seem odd for the man taking over an entity merged from Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (Ateed) and Regional Facilities Auckland to support a venue not even owned by Auckland Council. Few could call Hill out for parochialism, at least. Hill says his viewpoint is "what's best for Auckland".
The former chief executive of Ateed can crown the Kingsland venue some sort of winner, if he wishes, but that will not magically wave away the well-organised neighbours of Eden Park who have done very well at heading off previous attempts to upscale events in Reimers Ave.
As well as the bespoke ownership arrangement of Eden Park, the stadium debate is mired in Auckland's history of counties, boroughs and cities which long competed for a larger slice of the sports and entertainment pie. North Harbour and Mt Smart facilities were developed by separate councils, which were then merged 10 years ago this month into a super city to provide a "vision for the region".
How well this vision has been realised should not be judged on the basis of sports venues alone, but it is sobering to consider a decade has passed without progress on the issue. That is due in large part because, for every considered opinion, there is one equally vocal of a diametrically opposed view.
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.
Christchurch is due to open a 25,000 seat multi-use stadium - twice the capacity of Spark Arena - in 2024. The Forsyth Barr Stadium in Dunedin can seat more than 30,000.
What Auckland needed when the Super City was shunted into place was a visionary leader with the determination and mana to sweep the vested interests aside long enough to install a vision. This is the case in stadia, as much as any other issues, it's just that a gigantic but deathly quiet 50,000-seat stadium in the middle of a residential suburb is easier to see.
Auckland, as much as the rest of New Zealand, believes in the right of people to have a say in what matters to them. Auckland, however, differs in that there are so many voices, many claiming historical promises or prior neglect which need addressing.
Auckland will remain locked in a rolling maul, shouting at each other and going nowhere, until a person takes charge and presses on with a solution.
Only then, might Auckland finally have a voice for a major stadium which will be heard over the roar of the crowd.