Kerre McIvor: I'm all for a waterfront stadium

COMMENT: I loved the idea of a waterfront stadium for Auckland when the idea was first mooted in 2006. Back then, we'd won the hosting rights for the 2011 Rugby World Cup and that was when serious chat started around building a shiny new stadium.

Initially, the IRB was told that Eden Park would be upgraded to the standard required of the host nation, but then Sports Minister Trevor Mallard had a rush of blood to the head and started musing about the possibility of a waterfront stadium, purpose built and right in the heart of Auckland city.

There was talk of a stadium being wrapped in translucent material, so as not to block out the view of the water, and a price tag of $500-$700 million was being tossed around.

The government would pay for the construction with a levy on travellers and people staying in hotels, motels and backpackers' lodges (a move strenuously opposed by the tourism industries); the sale of naming rights, corporate boxes and sponsorship, and the Auckland City Council would have to cough up $50m (a move strenuously opposed by ratepayers).

Many people liked the idea of a new stadium, but half the country didn't like the idea of it being in Auckland and Aucklanders didn't like the idea of having to pay for it.

The government wanted a waterfront stadium, the Auckland City Council quite liked the idea of one but the Auckland Regional Council voted against it.

The chief executive of the Ports of Auckland at the time was having conniptions, stating that there was no way five billion dollars' worth of business could be moved from the port in time for the construction of a new stadium.

It was a shambles.

Jade Stadium in Christchurch was put on alert to be prepared to host any upcoming feature games - but I suspect Trevor Mallard didn't really mean it and was just playing hardball.

In the end, as we all know, the government lost its nerve and an opportunity for a world-class stadium was lost too.

The upgrade of Eden Park went ahead but it is not a long-term solution. We need a new stadium and the proposal unveiled this week looks just the ticket. A 1.8 billion sunken stadium which won't impact on the views of the water and which won't cost ratepayers and taxpayers.

Sounds too good to be true but the numbers have been crunched and the consortium behind the proposal says it can fund the stadium, provided it gets the rights to build housing on 9 hectares at Eden Park and develop Bledisloe Wharf along the lines of Wynyard Quarter with a mix of apartments, commercial buildings and public spaces.

This all sounds absolutely marvellous. And I much prefer the design of this stadium over the 2006 blueprints. The price tag has gone up a fair whack in 12 years but if we keep talking and keep faffing around and keep stalling, it's going to be even more expensive another 12 years from now.

I really like this proposal. I don't like the Ports of Auckland being right in the centre of the city, closing off the waterfront to the people. I love what's happened around the Wynyard Quarter and this could be a wonderful opportunity to create a city waterfront to be proud of.

But I'm not popping champagne corks yet. As Simon Wilson mentioned in his opinion piece on Friday, it's incredible that the consortium haven't had Ngāti Whātua on board from the start, given that their support will be vital to any plan.

And there are always naysayers and Eeyores who see disaster where others see opportunity. I've been MC at many corporate dos where speakers used to talk about BHAGs - big, hairy, audacious goals. The Auckland Waterfront Consortium's proposal is the biggest, hairiest and the most audacious of the proposals I've seen for the waterfront.

Good on them.

In the triumphant words of our Prime Minister, let's do this!

• Kerre McIvor is on Newstalk ZB, Sundays, 9am-noon.