Random Play by Graham Reid

Well, I'm not sure whether a 10-storey high stadium -- which will be kinda permanent, right? -- is such a crash-hot idea, let alone a "legacy". A 10-storey anything in a residential suburb -- albeit one where there is a long-established venue like Eden Park -- is going to be more eyesore than legacy as these people envision it.

Yeah, they should have built it somewhere where a 10-storey building wouldn't tower over everything for miles around. The CBD, for instance.

Oh hang on ... sorry.

I guess the challenge now is to think of which of Auckland's half-arsed stadiums is going to be used and upgraded for le grande event.

I'm guessing Graham you'd favour North Harbour?

But yeah, everyone has more or less run out of puff on the issue, as you suggest, meaning Mt Eden/Sandringham will probably get stuck with a big rugby-only stadium, ACC ratepayers will probably get stuck with the bill, and Auckland cricket will probably get stuck with a "find a new place to play your game during the 6 weeks of the year when we're not obsessing about rugby" order.

So, yea, roll on Christmas.

Now that the excitement of the Waterfront stadium has worn off, most of the people I talk to seem to be leaning to the "sensible" option, i.e. temporary seating at Eden Park, done on the cheap.

I still haven't heard a good reason why Auckland needs a permanent 65,000 seat stadium.

Sure it's the least exciting option but we can surely come up with a better way to spend $385m. Not increasing rates by that amount, for example.

The only sensible suggestion was Grant Fox who said , "once the decision is made everyone should get behind it".

North Harbour seems sensible from a distance but it is not where the powers to be decided to go. Although looking here you would wonder why? LINK

Northern and Western Motorway Ring route. Bus way 2007. Buses flexible. Planned for light rail in future, adjacent infrastructure for park & rides eg Massey University, etc

I have much sympathy for those who bought properties next to Eden Park but surely they knew the stadium extension was a possibility?

Back in the mid-late fifties, when the then Auckland bureaucrats were debating the building of the harbour bridge, the British engineers strongly suggested they make it an eight-lane bridge as a four-lane, the preferred (read cheaper) option, would be unable to cope within 10 years. There was much sneering and pointing out that there were only farms on the north shore and it would be donkey's years before the bridge couldn't cope with the traffic. As it turned out it was straining at the seams with EIGHT years and the hastily organised Nippon Clip-on cost three times the total cost of the original bridge.
The intellectual stamina of yer average Auckland bureaucrat hasn't probably changed much over a couple of generations and I can see another first class balls-up well under way.
The North Harbour Stadium, situated as it is in the middle of a vast industrial area, would seem the most common-sense and least offensive of all the options -- though I must confess to finding the Carlaw Park presentation most appealing.
The NH option, apart from being the cheapest and quickest to build, would leave heaps of spare cash to concentrate on improving the NH-City transport system.

The North Harbour Stadium, situated as it is in the middle of a vast industrial area, would seem the most common-sense and least offensive of all the options -- though I must confess to finding the Carlaw Park presentation most appealing.
The NH option, apart from being the cheapest and quickest to build, would leave heaps of spare cash to concentrate on improving the NH-City transport system.

Yeah, but the trains run right past Stadium Australia and it still went broke, because there's basically bugger-all there when you walk out the gate. OTOH you have the brilliant sports precinct right next to the Melbourne CBD.

The other problem with NHS is that you will never get Auckland rugby relocating there. So Eden Park stays, with all its costs, and there's a 60,000 seat stadium in a place where the the local provincial team struggled to pull 10,000 all season.

Leaving aside all the stuff about process and harbour views, the CBD stadium would have been easily the most viable of the potential venues. As you might be able to tell, I'm still kind of bummed about it ...

I'm pissed with Labour for not ramming the damn thing thru. Mallard waves this great idea in front of our noses and then lets our local govt decide. It was dead from that moment on and they should have known that. The only way that it was going to happen is if Labour had just pushed it thru regardless.

Either Labour should have not suggested it our they should have ignored local govt. Now there's just a depressing sense of what might have been.

(Mallard waves this great idea in front of our noses and then lets our local govt decide. It was dead from that moment on and they should have known that..)

Perhaps they did!! The Christchurch Mayor managed to think it through!

(The other problem with NHS is that you will never get Auckland rugby relocating there.)

Do they come anyway? Isn't that the argument that the only time you will fill a big stadium in Auckland for a Rugby game is for a National event? They certainly could not fill Edin Park for the Ranfurly Shield when they last held it.