New stadium worries, NZ wide + a waterfront, ours

Last weekend, Sunday Star-Times (Focus, page A11) featured three stories about stadiums:

“Nothing divides New Zealand like a good stadium debate. Kiwis can’t seem to agree how much the country’s major arenas are worth or what should go on in them. The Sunday Star-Times went around the country to investigate where the battle lines are drawn.” –Kilgallon

● Steve Kilgallon
Theatres of dreams: Auckland seems to have got itself into a real mess about shuffling its sports stadiums

● Sophie Speer
Costly venue turns off top acts (Westpac)

● Michael Wright
Covered stadium will wait (Christchurch)

Related Posts and Comments:
28.9.12 ODT preamble on Davies story
5.8.12 Stadium deathwatch


[even Jim Harland, former DCC chief executive, had a strong appreciation for historic ‘regenerated’ waterfronts; he showed me his snapshots from Boston, a people-place waterfront complete with sample of old ships… an update to my visit in 1984]

Yesterday, celebrating the centenary of Aspinall Joel Lawyers, a group of us took the harbour cruise on MV Tiakina. Travelling past the Fubar edifice, it occurred to me how bad the ‘shed’ looks from the channel. Most times I see it from Waverley, and although you can read it closely from there, there’s nothing like a confrontational boat trip reveal. If this is the best we can do architecturally, Dunedin, heaven help us. Thank god international cruise ships can’t make it to the upper harbour.

Ditto that for the ’27-storey hotel’ idea for 41 Wharf St. Take the Jetty St overbridge and observe the site from the front passenger seat as you head down the off-ramp to the Steamer Basin. It’s from here the gross misjudgement hits – why didn’t ORC and or DCC buy 41 Wharf St off Tim Barnett and enter consultation with the Dunedin Community on the best possible use and development of this and the wider ‘civic’ site that includes the wharf area ???

Dunedin, this tower design effort (what design?) is pathetic. People with no aesthetic sensibility are bloody wrecking our city’s waterfront precinct potential and future!

The Community should be saving the old steam tug SS Te Whaka (a gutsy workhorse form, now up out of the water, inviting rescue one way or the other) as part of the whole harbourside experience, for peanuts–compared to the monetary grief that will unfold if DCC allows the tower to be erect-ed… the disingenuous tall building means a lot of toes, one hell of a lot of shootings.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr


Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Design, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Name, ORC, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Town planning, Urban design

3 responses to “New stadium worries, NZ wide + a waterfront, ours

  1. Paul

    You are dead right about the Te Whaka, this, the touted heritage capital having a steam fest and at the very same time, the Te Whaka, 102 years old, is being scrapped! A true act of travesty, say no more.

    • Elizabeth

      Photographing Te Whaka this weekend.

      • Elizabeth

        ### 5:30 AM Wednesday Oct 17, 2012
        AMI Stadium rebuild may win out
        By Kurt Bayer – APNZ
        Quake-rocked AMI Stadium in Christchurch could be repaired for $45 million, which will sink plans for a $500 million covered sports stadium in the city. International geotechnical engineering experts have scoured the two hulking concrete grandstands that were damaged by the September 2010 and February 2011 earthquakes, and have found they can be cheaply fixed. The stadium, on Christchurch’s most famous sporting site, could be returned to its pre-quake specifications for “much less” than its $135 million insurance tag, they have concluded. But the international ground’s owners, Christchurch City Council, were yesterday in the dark over the move, as was the Canterbury Rugby Football Union (CRFU), who have been pushing hard for a world-class covered stadium in the rebuilding city. CRFU chief executive Hamish Riach said that if AMI Stadium was rebuilt, plans for a stadium with a roof would be shelved.
        Read more

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s