- David B
I have never in my life emailed a newspaper before, but if it's going to stop this ludicrous idea of spending our taxes on ruining what's left of the already badly disfigured waterfront, with building something that only a sad bunch of rugby hoolygans are ever going to be interested in visiting - than I'm happy to make an exception for the cause.
- Diana
I think there's been alot of promises made to the IRB and now those involved are about to get egg on their faces if we don't pull this World Cup off properly. I think the 700 million+ is an awful amount for one project. Don't get me wrong I think we should spend a decent amount on this sporting event but having a 35 meter high stadium on the waterfront in a shape of a potty is not my idea of money well spent. I'm sure it'll look great but we MUST do better for the water front. I recently went to London to the new Emirates Stadium to watch an Arsenal game and the stadium (and match) was fantastic. But during the week the entire neighbourhood had no 'feeling' to it. Spread the 700 million between doing up two stadiums perhaps. Northshore? Eden Park? Mt Smart? But get the transport right too! Underground trains whatever - too long talking and we will have the biggest egg on all of our faces!
- DC
$500m budget for new stadium + usual cost overruns = that price tag will probably double. And what's the bet that price tag doesn't include the cost of relocating NZ's biggest container terminal - that will cost billions! Where in Auckland could you build a suitable new port!?! I say spend the $300m on improving Eden Park & the balance on roading & public transport infrastructure to support Eden Park.
- Andrew Gibson
This idea of annexing the city behind the proposed stadium cutting it off from the sea is terrible. Auckland doesn't need anther sports stadium and it disappoints me that our government will consider handing out 700 million at the drop of a hat for some thing no will be able to fill after the world cup, it will be redundant This money would be better spent on heath and education. If the rugby union wants a new stadium let them pay for it from their own pocket. as they are only people that will benefit from this. I also notice that the Auckland central MP hasn't even bothered to rase her head from her trough to comment.
-Disappointed rates payer Simon
Government has no money for public transport and roads but somehow finds it (or taxes for it) for a sports stadium... strange??? We will have a new state-of-the-art stadium and a poor transport/road system (and parking) to get there. What about the government focusing on real issues of importance like education, services for the disabled, health, etc., etc.
- Graeme Fulton
The money should come solely from sponsorship and Auckland regional councils and cities with a huge input from the government. Leave the ratepayers alone, we'll support it voluntarily....if we want to. Most of us have got enough worries trying to ensure our children inherit our properties without the authorities trying to screw us out of them thru rate rises and levies for a large doughnut stuck smack bang in the middle of one of the most beautiful harbors in the world. Nah...jam it out in Sylvia Park?
- TuriaDavis
Dr Cullen said "It may be time for New Zealand to have a New Zealand stadium." - this is Cullenspin for all New Zealanders will have to pay for it. Tax tax tax is all Labour Party does
- Paul King
Waste of taxpayers money, waste of Auckland ratepayers money and an ugly blight on what is left of our waterfront. Shame on them for even considering the option.
- Richard Walsh
Lets just go for the cheapest option. The waterfront stadium does not look viable without a huge effort in building and funding it. It's not worth it. Do up the existing grounds, we don't need another one. Also groups like the NZ rugby union should not be able to bid for major tournaments that it can not afford to host. They were always banking on the public bailing them out and I for one feel ripped off. Lets face it, the rugby world cup is for wealthy people only. Ordinary people won't get to go to the games, we just get to pay for the stadium.
- Adam Williams
Let the people who will financially gain from the Stadium pay for it, it certainly won't be the Ratepayers. We are all supposed to have benefitted from the Americas Cup and I am still waiting. How strange we can't find the money for health and essential items but stadiums and the like there is no major problems. These are the points to remember at Election time.
- Ian Robinson
Sorry Auckland BUT NO way will have my taxpayer taxes used in this way. If this corrupt Labour Goverment wants this then let them pay for it out of the MP's pay/perks. I would say this is more a Ms Clark not wanting it at Eden Park or in her area. And as for Mr Mallard I would question his reasons and ethics look at his track record over the last 7 years. No way Auckland why pay up to $1billion this is what it will end up costing us, when Eden Park have done the due dilligance and the cost $380 million.
- Carl Forster
If grandiosing rugby wallahs ally with local body politicians in search of a monument to their own greatness, and a desperate government sinking in the polls joins them to decide to spend our money lavishly on something we neither want nor will use, it's a desperate day for New Zealand. Stop this obnoxious white elephant (actually it looks more like a white bedpan) before we all regret it. This plan has fiasco written all over it.And voting Green looks like an increasingly saner option. Or moving to Australia.
- Dale
I can't understand why New Zealand even got the bid for 2011, ahead of a country like Japan, which has the stadia and infrastructure to cope with an event like this (all from the soccer World Cup in 2002). Incidentally, those stadia are even now rarely used, all that money spent for nothing!! Asking NZ taxpayers to pay more to build this stadium, on top of what they already pay, is a scandal, asking tourists to the country to do so, is unprintable! The only way I can see this happening is to upgrade an existing stadium, be it Eden Park, or a similar venue. Either that, or give the bid back!
- Elaine Bolton
When are councils going to realise that large sports stadiums are not the Holy Grail? We have enough under-performing venues in this city - North Harbour Stadium for a start - and ratepayers are sick of having to prop up commercial concerns. Additionally, when is someone going to complain about half the CBD losing their harbour views, and what a dreadful, ugly vista it will be from the harbour as well!
- Mitchell Hutchism
When I heard about the waterfront stadium idea, my first thought (other than 'what a terrible idea') was that they would never, never be able to get it done in time. Big building projects in this country have a habit of running hugely late and badly over budget just look at Vector, not to mention the prisons. The cost of this proposed stadium would most likely balloon to over $1b, and I'm quite sure that by the time the RWC rolled around, it still wouldn't be done and the games would be played in Australia (who would no doubt be quite happy to take it off our hands). Furthermore, it's simply beyond me why the government would choose the most expensive option for a RWC stadium. Over and over we're told that there isn't enough money for this or that (you know, like healthcare and roads and tax cuts and things that would actually benefit Joe Public). But for the RWC, the government suddenly has money to burn. Or actually, they don't, but they're planning to take more money from us and burn that instead. Piling more taxes onto an already overtaxed public? Taxing tourists and visitors to our country, when tourism is one of our major sources of income? And all this for a new stadium that we don't actually need, given that we've got several underused ones already any of which could be modified to do the job at a much lower cost. Please, someone save us from the politicians.
- Caroline
Wasnt it Mr Moller and the NZRFU who won the bid to host the 2011 World Cup.If so why are they only putting in a measly $10 million into this? They expect us taxpayers to pay the vast majority of the costs of building either Eden Park or the Waterfront while they get the benifit. The NZRFU should be putting more money into this not the Taxpayer they wanted the tournament they should pay it
K C Christini
I am amazed that this was not considered prior to the NZRFU putting in their bid to host the 2011 World Cup. I think Aucklanders need to think more carefully about this because of what has happened with the North Harbour Stadium, particularly ratepayers having to pay the debt/loss that was recently announced. I am opposed to a 'waterfront' facility. If huge sums of money are to be spent on simply trying to hastily arrange for a 2011 World Cup venue, then this money would be better spent on upgrading BOTH Eden Park and North Harbour Stadium to the required specifications. Mt Smart Stadium could also be factored into this. To build a whole new facility would be a waste of money, as it would then become a white elephant through under-utilisation, after the 2011 World Cup final. Let's take the Wellington Stadium (caketin) for example, this was sold to the ratepayers (Wgton, Hutt Valley, Kapiti & Wairarapa regions) on the basis that it would be, quote, 'a multi-purpose facility for the whole region to use and enjoy', unquote. Although the stadium is now starting to be used for various events, it has primarily been dominated by Rugby Union and Cricket. It was not built just for them, it is a community facililty which should be shared a hell of a lot more than it is now. There are a lot of unhappy event organisers who could utilise the 'caketin' even more but are flabberghasted at the hireage fees. So much for the 'multi-purpose facility for the whole region to use and enjoy'. Learn from those mistakes, don't build a 'one-off' venue that will end up more often NOT used, than used for what it should be.Come on, let common sense prevail and invest in upgrading the existing facilities (Eden Park, North Harbour & Mt Smart Stadiums) and use all 3 as part of the World Cup tournament. Then, with more time to plan and organise, consider a a whole new Stadium design and location for the future. The point I wish to make here is quite simply, please, please, make an informed decision, not a hasty one, to the detriment of burdening ratepayers. Further to my suggestion, not only upgrading the existing venues will benefit Auckland, but the bigger rewards will come from upgrading and improving transportation to and from these sites for Aucklanders to go on and use on a daily basis. Putting this on the 'waterfront' will not have such ongoing benefits.
- Morrie Flood
As someone living in Melbourne I watch with amusement as yet another major infrastructure project will be stymed by the short-term emotive reactions of many Aucklanders. For those of you that haven't been here, Melbourne has two major stadiums (MCG and Telstra Dome) and is about to build a third (a 20k+ seater specifically for soccer and rugby) and all of them are in the centre of the city near the bars, clubs and major transport hubs. They all work together and make the city a vibrant place. The schools and health systems haven't fallen to bits, the stadiums look great and add to the vista of the city Auckland has an opportunity to create a similar environment with a magnificant centre piece on the harbour front - don't blow it! It's time for Auckland to grow up and truely become a world class city - because it is not at the moment...
- Doug Hewitt
It seems clear to me that New Zealand can't afford to host the Rugby world cup if we can't agree on A, where a stadium will be. B, how much it will cost and C, how to pay for it. We are already over taxed and over rated by Central and local Government, Do we really need to over commit ourselves even further? It was the IRB and the Government who made the bid for the games and made the commitment to be ready to host the event, They should be responsable for the event in it's entirety. It's reported that Auckland's Rates will increase by about 9% next year, It will soon be an increase of 19% if this falls upon the rate payers of Auckland City or the Auckland regional Council to help support this event. The finance Minister consistantly talks of fiscal prudence, this should be the case here. I say no to more taxes and Levies and that includes the Motorway Toll's currently being put forward.
- William Warwick
If this is all such a struggle, why don't we give the whole thing to Aussie? I'm sure they can handle it.
- Albert Ho
Most people cant afford the rates, game tickets, parking, or even sky TV. So good thinking Dick
- Jason
A second thought after reading some later comments - since the proposed stadium looks like an eyesore maybe Helen's corrupt government could kill a number of birds with this money spinning design. Anchor the stadium to the sea floor to prevent loss to a tsunami event with a largish nuclear power station underneath - tons of cooling water available - no problem with future Auckland power supplies - right where it is needed! The stadium could be centrally heated at no cost and the upperworks be slightly redesigned to be used as a cooling tower in the off days when Rugby games are not being played. Self funding from power and seating sales and no doubt very happy Waikato farmers without a power line upgrade!
- Peter MacDonald
No I really cant say that I fancy an eyesore like a stadium on the waterfront. I quite like the Carlaw park option. I'm not in love with the idea of Eden Park trust getting a free lunch here. Although this is a major World Championships and it will bring money into New Zealand in the long term, it is not the Olympics and therefore the gains to New Zealand should be kept in perspective. So then should the up-front and legacy costs. Yes the Tourist/Accommodation industry should bear some of the cost, they are likely to be the biggest beneficiaries. One thing does worry me though, the benefits to New Zealand of this type of event are entirely based on the ability of the world to travel to New Zealand, the cost of which is never likely to decrease. Given the current instability over fuel and consequently the cost of travel, what sort of risks are we taking in terms of enough people being able to afford to turn up?
- Tony
This proposal to spend vast sums of money on something with low social value and potentially low actual public use is madness. This money would be better spent on hospitals and schools facitities that are used almost every day and have a social pay back. Further the proposal to put it on the water front is grossly offensive and beyond reason. The water front area proposed should be retained for future commercial port development, or for free public use, not tied up for use by those that follow rugby.
- Gavin Dunn
10 reasons we should not proceed with the stadium. 10.We don't need it. 9.We can't afford it. 8.We don't want it. 7.We can't do it in time. 6.We can't even treat our women for breast cancer 5.We can't even pay for Herceptin. 4.We can't even keep our children safe. 3.We can't be trusted with Fireworks. 2.We can't look after our elderly.
1.We wont use it after 2012.
- W.Dawn
Common sense has been kicked in to touch with this one! The RWC is only expected to bring economic benefits of $390m for the entire country. It is ridiculous to spend up to $1b dollars for a waste of space on the waterfront. We could add just a couple of thousand extra seats to Eden Park, and 20,000 more to North Harbour, for a lot less. In the age of television, why do we need extra seats anyway? Set up a giant screen at the Viaduct, similar to the Soccer World Cup in Germany. For the cost of the waterfront stadium, Auckland could have an electrified rail network all the way to the airport, including trains. Why spend all that money on something that will only be filled to capacity about 5 times a year, instead of every day? The Government won't electrify rail until it sees a business case, but I think the business case for a waterfront stadium would sink like a stone.
- Cameron Pitches
Once again I gaze with awe upon the infallible wisdom of our politicians. A towering waterfront stadium is exactly what we need. Something that visiting dignitaries can laugh about as they leap off its parapets into the rising waters of a Port rendered ineffective and obsolete by the same Global Warming and Peak Oil that have led to the collapse of economies and tourism around the world. We may not have enough visitors for the 2011 Rugby World Cup to actually recoup the debt scraped together to pay for the stadium, but who cares? So long as our politicians tell us that we need it, we want it, it is good and beautiful and like bread for the soul of the nation, we need only bask in its opulent monstrosity.
- Curt Kurschus
Eden park has declining audiences and has never got close to being full this season. So the solution is to build another even bigger stadium which will undoubtably have even higher ticket prices? How will a stadium that is used half the year and even then only on weekends bring any life to the downtown area? Kill this turkey now please.
- Michael Jones
How dumb can the government actually be?? I actually thought that the "let's put a staduim on the waterfront" idea was a joke when I first heard it! Why would you want to move something like the port to Tauranga when so mant people would lose their jobs up here in Auckland! Why not upgrade Eden Park and add another stand onto the North Harbour Stadium. North Habour stadium is ideal! It's right off the motorway, heaps of parking, the park n ride is a few minutes walk away...This sort of thing should have been already in construction as soon as the IRB said the NZ would be hosting the cup! Come on, I'm 19 and even I can think of something that would make more sense that putting a stadium on the waterfront! hah what a joke! Helen, since you are taxing the living daylights out of some people and your Minister of Finance has released the fact that the government has a few million dollars to spare, why not throw that into helping out so that the facilities to be used in 2011 are top-notch and tourists keep coming back? Just a thought!
- Michelle
It is impossible to have all the consents required let alone construct a Water Front Stadium for a few "Rugby games" in 2011. The Minister of the Environment has been noticeably quiet about this government proposal, I wonder where he stands on this? Oh! and will he give his consent? In light of his strong opinions on Water front developments. Further develop either North Harbour Stadium or Mt. Smart stadium (Ericcson). Leave NZ Rugby administration where it is at Eden Park. Get on with it quickly contract it to an overseas construction company, the Japanese seem to be very good at acheiving construction goals. As regards who pays? Helen Clark's government and the NZ Rugby Union together with Private Enterprise through sponsorships. I'm sure NZ Ratepayers will have to kick in at some stage after all when the World Cup in 2011 is over........maintenance and upkeep will have to be funded.
- Ann Brown
The point that seems to be missed is that Eden Park should be closed (as was done to Athletic Park) and then the land sold by the Eden Park Trust Board which they can then invest in the new waterfront stadium. This negates any issues with trying to maintain two stadia in Auckland City as well as ensuring that more games are played at the new stadium. Eden Park Trust board don't lose out here, nor does the taxpayer (at least to the same extent as is being currently planned)
- Rupert Applin
Another white elephant for Aucklandand if it ever gets approval (I hope not)please dont let the architects that designed the new Vector Events Centre or the Australian company building Wembley Stadium have anything to do with it or we will still be waiting for completetion in time for the 2015 World Cup. So the Sheriff of Wellington has decided we Aucklanders will be paying for most of it through a rates rise. Well I for one will be deducting the amount levied from my rates bill and I thought we were in a 'User Pays ' period so let the NZRU and Sky Television pay for it.
- Tony Bullock
At World Cup level, rugby is a business. Those who profit from this business should have figured out and agreed to pay for the facilities they needed before they bid for the World Cup. My rates and taxes should only go for essential services which government alone can provide: defense, police, health, education, infra-structure.
- Max Moss
Finally someone with some sense, Geoff Vazey is right on the money around the timeframe. We only need look at the redevelopment of Wembley stadium to see how timeframes (and costs) can blow out. And even closer to home look how long it has taken to build the Vector Arena. Will it ever be finished? I am sure the $700m could be better spent fixing some of Auckland existing infrastructure problems rather than building something that in all probability will be finished long after the Rugby W
David Quinn
As a design engineer I cannot see how anyone in their right mind would support such an idea as having a stadium built on piles on reclaimed land between two wharfs especially to have to open by 2011 and on budget. One problem and the budget would blow out, eg start driving in the piles only to find that the ground isn't as good as first thought so the statium foundations have to be resdesigned. Also what is the business plan for this proposed stadium, it makes no sense to spend upwards of $700 millon on a stadium that won't do anything different than any of the other 3 exisitng stadiums will do with a $300 million makeover. The ticket's cannot be sold at twice the price because the punters are paying for the "privilege" of having a waterfront seat that cant even see the water. The most logical solution is to upgrade one of the existing stadiums and invest the extra money in a good public transport system to transport the punters to the events. The public transport would also have a purpose after the World Cup however the proposed stadium would not and would end up as a "white elephant"
This seems a lot of effort just because our Prime minister doesn't want drunken rubgy fans around her neighbourhood anymore.
- Craig Player
Another stadium in Auckland? Have we lost our common sense? Council rates are at a level of tyranny. We Kiwi are mired in personal debt. Auckland is plagued by traffic and power supply problems. Global ecological issues are leaning on our way of life. And we want to build another what? Still the politicians hastily spin big numbers and splash schemes for this stadium with uncanny confidence, while it will be us who wear the cost like a pair of fancy shackles for a long time. May be its time, instead, to re-examine and shore up the essentials before burdening ourselves with more frills.
- Jamieson Dickie
I think the government should take a prudent approach and minimise costs when deciding on a stadium option for Auckland instead of saddling the country with more debt. Personally I favour the Carlaw Park option as it has all the transport access needed.
- John Mawdsley
An absolute NO to any form of funding for this wild pipe-dream from ratepayers of any council or increased taxes to fund from central government - Helengrad has enough of our money spare right now to fund this thing 10 time over if she wants an election year bribe for the City of Sails. Wait till the unions ransom the actual construction - it will be another Mangere bridge all over again.
- Peter MacDonald
Auckland rate payers should only contribute a nominal portion of the total cost. Special tourist levies is the way to go. However, of great concern to me is the impact this stadium will have on the living and working environment in downtown Auckland during the many years of construction, as well as when it is operational. Having 60,000 people move to and from the stadium is going to create havoc for all who live and work in the vicinity.
- M A Schauer
OK, enough about can it or can't it be built. We are Kiwi's, we can do anything better than other countries. So lets get to it! A stadium purpose built for the 2011 world cup should be built. The Americans have been building stadiums for decades. Take M&T Bank stadium for example in Baltimore U.S.A. It was completed in 1998 taking a little over two years to build. It seats 70'107 people and cost around $220m US. The local city government funded it and gets a percentage of all ticket sales. C'mon people, lets do this and show the world that we not only have the best rugby team but that we can do anything!
-Wayne
North Harbour IS the ONLY option for stadium. Buses etc right to the door. Bledisloe the third biggest 24 / 7 operation port in NZ. Govt & pushes for stadium must be in cuckoo land, to have one built there. As regards to taxing us it's unprintable. Govt wants cup here let them pay, benefits in long term will pay for it.
- Bill
The main question is who is going to use the stadium after the rugby world cup. WE cant even full Eden Park for any of the NPC or Super 14 games I am sure as an event it is a lot better to see a full stadimun. I know that Eden Park will have same issue but way spend another $700 million as it want cost $500 million. Also I assume know all tests will be played in Auckland like overseas countries with Cardiff Arm park, Twickman etc. The goverment seems to have plenty of money to invest in this project, but cant even get the police numbers up to sort out the shocking crime stats that are know occuring in Auckland and around the rest of NZ.
- W Brooke
This is going to one mighty white elephant and a very expensive one as well. Apart from the cost of the stadium itself there is the port operations to take into consideration. The blot on the harbour front will also be horrendous. Who will pay? Who will go? and who will care? Just look at all the other similar ventures where countries have constructed stadiums for sporting events like the olympics. They are all still paying for them. And that's for the olympics. This is just for rugby. Pull your head in New Zealand....the majority of people in the world doesnt care about rugby. Stop fooling yourself that it does. This is going to be one big expensive mistake. Don't say you werent warned!
- C Spencer
What a crazy idea. An inward looking tyre shaped thing on a working port. If built we ship the containers to Tauranga and truck them up. That is expensive and not sustainable. Please Mayor Hubbard and Ludo Campbell-Reid save us from this Urban Design nightmare.
Andy Smith
We have a stadium with history, internationally known, ready and waiting to begin work. What is the Govt. pussyfooting around for, trying to spend more than is needed for the World Cup? The Govt needs to realise they have a duty to be accountable with public money. If the waterfront stadium was given the go-ahead, who is going to pay for the past twelve months of work and cost to Eden Park, when they were asked to prepare for redevelopment in the first place? Helen Clark was right alongside Eden Park, promising to have this venue finished in time. If they studied the proposed development they would find untold benefits for the whole area of Kinglsand. If a waterfront stadium is given the green light, we'll most probably be handing Australia a golden opportunity to step in and take over the world cup - as a favour to us! Give to Eden Park whatever they plan for the waterfront - case closed, problem solved. But most of all, we'll have a Prime Minister who honours an earlier committment.
- Mary
There is no way that most Aucklanders would support further taxes to build a stadium on the waterfront, which may not, even 5 years out, be ready in time.
Frankly the money would be better spent sorting out Auckland's diabolical roads and public transport system. Let another city in NZ have the world cup - Christchurch perhaps?
- Annemarie
A waterfront stadium extravaganza carries very high risk of both massive cost over-runs, and not being finished on time. It is not "simple" engineering and embraces many associated problems not advertised. Tax payers, especially the majority not interested in footy should share neither the cost nor the embarrassment and upheaval. Far too much resource is afforded rugby. Find a more appropriate affordable location.
- David
What a blight on the Auckland harbour! We all know the price will blowout to 1 billion. Look at the new Vector stadium and all the problems that had. What a legacy for the Labour party. A giant BEDPAN. If Mayor Hubbard wants to put himself out of office, this will surly be his swansong!
- Anthony Booth
I don't want to help pay for a new stadium and I don't think visitors to New Zealand should have to either. The amount of money the government wants to spend is outrageous. The proposed new stadium is very large and very ugly. Surely this can't go ahead.
- Heather
It defies my understanding that a government operating at a huge surplus, would be contemplating a new source of taxation which doubtless will stay in place long after the stadium is built. There is no credible link between the tourism industry and the costs involved in constructing and maintaining a new stadium. Having reached the end of the road with taxes and rates imposed on NZ residents does not justify turning our visitors into NZ tax subjects.
- A S Kyriak
I am glad to see the government is in favor of putting $500mill+ project right on the waterfront in Auckland. This must be good news to every one that is concerned about Global warming and rising. See levels. We even can wiggle us out of the Koyoto protocol, as according to our Minister of Greatness, Global warming is not going to happen, why else would they put right in harms way? But then again , maybe he hasnt told us about the big "Lifesaver" that will go right around the stadium, just in case. The solution, there is a Stadium on the North shore, build already, with uddels of space and parking around it. and with the bus lane going in, transporting people from Auckland is not a problem at all.
- Martin
The Waterfront stadium option is not the best option and is going to hit Auckland ratepayers hard. Time is also fast running out to have a stadium built in time for the Rugby World Cup in 2011. The most sensible and practical option would still be to redevelop Mt Smart Stadium at Penrose. Mt Smart is an existing large stadium located at Penrose in Auckland city and is only 8km from the CBD. It is close to many transport links - Great South Road, SH1 and SH20 motorways, South Eastern Highway and the airport. It is also right next to the Onehunga railway line, so many people could travel to and from the stadium by train. Mt Smart would not have the parking and congestion issues that other stadium options would have. Mt Smart could be easily rebuilt and would be ready in time by 2011. In all, Mt Smart is close to the CBD, easy to get to,
and would not have the cost and controversy that the other options have.
- Isaac Broome
The plan for the waterfront stadium is likely to be over $1 billion by the time the land is purchased and other associated costs such as mitigating effects are paid for (not to mentioned the paying back to Eden Park Trust Board the monies alre
