KEY POINTS:
Since the Government said it was considering options other than Eden Park, alternatives have been put forward. Many of the options - such as Carlaw Park and Manukau - are fanciful schemes that would not meet the rigorous practical assessment of stadium operators or hirers.
Rather than making
an emotive decision, Auckland and New Zealand need to consider relevant matters objectively in answering the question of which will best serve Auckland and New Zealand in the long run.
It is clear that the Government sees more at stake than just the 2011 Rugby World Cup and we agree with this thinking. A stadium of this magnitude must serve as a world-class multipurpose venue for the next 50 years.
It needs to be finished in time for the Cup, be within budget, have good public transport, have few Resource Management Act issues, enough land available for infrastructure and expansion in the area, and be aligned with the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy.
Considering the facts of today, North Harbour Stadium is the best option to fulfil the requirements of tomorrow. It is a successful multipurpose stadium that hosts sport and community events and concerts.
Some Auckland rugby fans would love Eden Park to host the Cup. But how will that stadium benefit the country in the long run when it can host only cricket and rugby and when it faces so many other restrictions?
Unlike the waterfront option and Eden Park, North Harbour Stadium has consents in place and is zoned to allow for expansion.
A waterfront stadium would bring costly Resource Management Act and engineering issues. And why build yet another stadium?
At Eden Park there are complex issues to resolve with residents and other stakeholders. Given its location and small land area, can you really see Eden Park as the country's stadium of the future?
North Harbour Stadium was designed for expansion and does not require major earthworks to expand to 60,000 seats, making it the most cost-effective and timely option.
On our suggested design it would cost $226 million for 41,000 extra seats. Eden Park would cost $320 million for 13,000 more seats and the Waterfront cost would probably exceed $500 million.
Space for parking, access and design flexibility must also be considered. Eden Park has 9ha and the waterfront would be even more confined. North Harbour has 28ha, giving it advantages in design and construction.
The amount of available land would be enough to construct multiple-access routes for efficient crowd movement, as well as for commercial and hospitality development.
The Northern busway will be completed next year. Bus services are ideal for large events because services are easily increased, routes altered and park-and-ride stations can be set up as required.
The southern and western motorway extensions (ring route) will mean that spectators travelling to an event at North Harbour Stadium from the south, the airport or western suburbs such as Mt Albert and Henderson, will have a second motorway option. This means two major arterial routes feeding the stadium as well as the busway link.
We challenge assumptions about Auckland's ability to design rail and services to cater for 60,000 fans.
This is not London or Europe - and rail was a debacle for the Auckland Lions test. Even if we could get the infrastructure right, once in place it is inflexible, expensive, and has no prospects for private investment in services.
It is a waste of public money to spend millions on new transport infrastructure to get fans into and out of a stadium constrained by residential housing when we have a stadium at the crossroads of three huge transport investments that are planned and budgeted.
A national stadium at Eden Park or on the waterfront will compress the movement of people and cars. But North Harbour Stadium promotes smart use of traffic management planning with existing infrastructure.
Auckland is a collection of cities and under the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy, Albany is a critical growth area. This means accommodation, entertainment and population growth are earmarked for the area to capitalise on these new regional transport routes
Should the national stadium be built here, relevant investment in amenities would naturally follow.
If the Government were to give North Harbour Stadium the green light, it would be replicating a successful formula of stadiums being built outside but within striking range of a city's cental business district. Good examples include Telstra Stadium in Homebush, out of Sydney; Wembley Stadium, northwest of central London; and Stade de France in Paris.
On logical and rational analysis, North Harbour Stadium is the obvious, low-risk, most cost-effective and future-proofed option.
* Brendon O'Connor is the chief executive officer of North Harbour Stadium.