Image Change?

Hmmm, yes/no.

I’ve been dying for ages to change the header, but while it was still a fight till the death it somehow seemed appropriate to have the somewhat generic stadium (albeit beautiful) image of the Beijing Water Cube.

Now that it’s a done deal and the first sod of soil will be turned over soon, it’s time to start looking forward past What if? to ‘let’s make sure it’s done bloody correctly’ (as Elizabeth will remind us over and over).

Advertisements

29 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Design, Fun, Inspiration, Stadiums

29 responses to “Image Change?

  1. Elizabeth

    Hi Paul – thanks!!! Mean it, for changing the header image. Better than the colour versions, still looks nicely ‘sketchy’. Well, dark and moody…in a southern sky.

    Moving on from the initial concept to the latest version, we should now be seeing the roof trusses externalised.

    SkyscraperCity’s new thread Dunedin | Stadium and Sports Infrastructure #2 has more images.

  2. I know re the roof trusses, I was tempted, but I really did like this ‘architectural drawing’ style, so accuracy was out the window for ‘atmosphere’.

    Lots of nice images over at the new SC Stadium thread (I like the use of the term infrastructure).

    So overdue for a change to the stadium image, it was embarrassing – guess who’s avoiding doing his work last couple of days.

  3. Elizabeth

    Max_Power is pro stadium, but hey the design urks…

    ### ODT Online Wed, 29/04/2009 – 11:08am.
    Comment by Max_Power on Ugly, ugly, ugly

    ****

    Rare, pukeko keeps it short this time…

    ### ODT Online Wed, 29/04/2009 – 6:54pm.
    Comment by pukeko on Re: ugly, ugly, ugly

    ****

    Images of Skilled Park at SkyscraperLife blog.
    Skilled Park near completion.

  4. KLK

    As I have said before, its definitely not ugly. Not the best by any stretch, but you couldn’t call it ugly. It will look great lit up at night too.

    And Skilled Park? Great from the inside, but its definitely nothing to shout from the outside. Again, its by no means ugly – and I like the white. But I’m not sure what Max is on about.

    Oh, and Skilled Park is solely a football ground. We can’t have a multi-purpose venue looking like a football ground….. :-)

  5. Pukeko, please if you have nothing to say (as you clearly don’t), please refrain from this sort of tripe. Skilled Park is not an ugly stadium, sure it’s not Allianz Arena or Wembley, but it is not ugly.

    And with the pet names, open cake tin, it demonstrates a lack of meaningful argument, sure everyone is entitled to their aesthetic sensibilities, but this is, as we all know, playing on the silly names we have here like Cake Tin.

    Our Stadium, well it isn’t again the most stunning building, but it is a huge improvement on what was there and I agree with you KLK, illuminated at night, it will look stunning.

  6. David

    The problem is at night it’s not going to look a lot different to the woolstore that was just demolished to make way for the Bunnings store.

    We’re probably not going to get many helicopter aerial views that some of the pro group said would be a great advertisement for the city (why would they go to the expense of putting a chopper up when they won’t get much of a view of what is happening beyond all those trusses and plastic.

    And talking of trusses, I haven’t heard anybody talk of the problem of keeping sight of a high ball when it is passing through alternate sunshine and shadow from the trusses.

  7. Anne Elliot

    Talking of trusses and plastic roof, I have not heard anyone mention the toiletting habits of sea gulls.

  8. Anne Elliot

    Ah well, I suppose the guano could be harvested to offset the expected $9,5mill annual cost of running the place. The guano left might also provide additional shade. A new spotty “Dunedin Stadium Tan” could be used to entice young people to the indoors during summer. I seem to remember that the plastic overhead would not protect one from UV rays, hence it should be possible to get a tan while reclining on the plastic seats.

  9. Wow the cynicism and rapier wit is out last night.

    “Talking of trusses and plastic roof, I have not heard anyone mention the toiletting habits of sea gulls.”

    That is because it’s not an issue. Unless that is our Seagulls are different from the ones in Munich of Beijing, didn’t deter them from using the very same material in the construction of their stadiums.

    Slow news night?

  10. David

    Perhaps seagulls aren’t the problem. Has anybody bothered to look at the problems of putting a clear roofed stadium right beside a dusty quarry? (I regularly see clouds of dust coming out of – so large I can see it from 5km away)

  11. Yes David covered.

    Pollutants in Beijing are greater than quarry dust. Add water and in Beijing it becomes acid, here you add water and that’s called cleaning it.

  12. Again, tested and proven. This material ETFE is the primary material for the Eden Project in the UK, possibly the most ambitious project of it’s kind in the world. They wouldn’t use any old Glass lying about. If you want to talk air quality, I’d hazzard a guess (yes still looking) but the PPM measurement of nasties in the the Beijing air would be far greater than anything coming from Ravensbourne in a NE wind.

  13. David

    Paul said “…here you add water and that’s called cleaning it.”

    As well as quarry dust there is also cement dust……..add water to it, and that’s called concrete.

    Palmers were recently given consent to operate here for something like another 25 years. That’s a real shame as the hole they have made resembles a perfect amphitheatre – now THAT would be a really unique attraction to bring people to Dunedin – it’s even in the right place, doesn’t need road realignment, is 75% completed already, for virtually no cost.

    Have a look at pictures here – (you may need to cut and paste this long link)
    http://www.davidwallphoto.com/searchresults.asp?ts=&g=&n=&Lids=&Gids=&c=&t=&tx=palmers+quarry&phrase=

  14. KLK

    Elizabeth wrote: “Britney Spears, if she is the opening act, will be entertaining – but she alone, oh with one or two rugby matches, a brass band, part occasional use by NZMG, and the potential for, say, a university rugby sevens tournament to be based here…still doesn’t justify the cost of the built facility dependent on SO MUCH public funding.”

    See, I just find this so self-defeating….and if I might add, overly negative. Your posts are nearly always thoughtful and fair, but unfortunately the anti-Stadium group slip too often into the ridiculously negative mode. See the comment “a brass band”….

    Take the disappointing comment “one or two rugby matches”. That’s just silly and mischevious. The Highlanders will play 4 or 5 times a year at Carisbrook (depending on the draw), and perhaps more with the S14 revamp. The Otago NPC side will play 7 games at home this year. Both of those sides will play more if they make the finals series. Throw in a test match at the new stadium 2 out of every 3yrs and professional rugby is being played there probably at least 12 weeks a year.

    Now I am by no means banking on full crowds (test match aside) and its going to take alot more than rugby to support this stadium (I am loathe to get into a rugby-centric discussion to bite at the anti-rugby brigade at StS – of which there appears to be many). But its still 12wks – and thats just one day week. Its available for use 6 other days for other groups…

    And none of the above takes into account its use a as a community facility (i.e. weekends where junior port could be played there to take away the threat of cancellations).

    I don’t mean to be offensive to you personally, but its this kind of negative thinking that holds NZ back. I hate it with a passion. In fact, thats an understatement.

  15. David

    KLK wrote “Throw in a test match at the new stadium 2 out of every 3yrs and professional rugby is being played there probably at least 12 weeks a year.”

    I think you mean 12 days per year (i.e. not played on 353 days per year).

    Actually hours would be closer to the mark – at 80min per game lets say 16 hours per year vs 8760 hours when it’s not played.

    When it comes down to it, you are talking a ratepayer subsidy of around $1 million for every rugby game.

  16. KLK

    David, I merely chose to pick out the rugby component of Elizabeth’s argument to point out the negativity in the overall piece, and the anti-Stadium groups position.

    Yet again, you infer that its solely a rugby facility and as such will only be used 12 days a year.

    That’s silly, absurd, and I would rather not dignify it with a response.

  17. Richard

    Hey guys, look at the plans and/or reports. The EFTE roof has its own cleaning system.

    As for the future use of Palmer’s Quarry, guess who first mooted the idea of using that for a stadium – as a replacement for the former Caledonian ….. way back in 1980. Ali McMurran did quite a write-up in the ODT about it. Problem is there is still a lot of quarrying to be done – I think another 50 years or so before the stuff runs out. What then? Who knows? Maybe one of those new, sealed, landfills. That is quite common use elsewhere.

    In fact, I understand the original quarry floor (now below sea-level) could probably be used for that purpose now.

    A planning topic for you Paul and Elizabeth?

    Cheers!

  18. KLK

    Sorry Elizabeth – I was making a comparison of that particular piece of yours only, and what I see as the overly negative view of the anti-Stadium group, rather than your view in general. The distinction didn’t quite come out in my comments.

  19. David

    KLK wrote “Yet again, you infer that its solely a rugby facility and as such will only be used 12 days a year.”

    The reason for that is because the analysis done for CST shows there will be little major use outside of rugby. There maybe 2-4 concerts.

    Outside that the next largest use will be up to 3 exhibitions which will need around 10% capacity (i.e. nearly 90% empty).

    Next largest use is soccer which is expected to attract crowds of 1000 per game (97% empty).

    Next is a large corporate event (one per year) with 500 people 1.5% full / 98.5% empty.

    All other forecast uses are for a couple of hundred people or less – less than 1% of capacity.

    The TOTAL revenue (before costs) forecast by CST for ALL events other than rugby is just $0.25m per year.

    It makes the whole multi-purpose claim look pretty hollow.

    Servicing of capital and interest will cost around a million a month. So every event outside of rugby, all put together, will only pay our loan commitments for one week out of 52 (before costs).

    As all events outside rugby contribute so little to the running costs, I stand by the statement that ratepayers will effectively be subsidising around $1,000,000 per rugby game.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s