Stadiums, in particular the FB Aurora Delta Stadium at Dunedin

Olympiastadion München, opened 26 May 1972

Received from Gurglars
Thu, 8 Jun 2017 at 2:11 p.m.

Bayern Munich bought out TSV 1860 Munich, their 50% joint venture partners, for €11 million. The stadium cost €360 million and originally seated 80,000 pax.

This is despite the Stadium being used weekly for matches for Bayern and TS Munchen, and six World Cup games being played at the stadium.

█ Wikipedia: Olympiastadion (Munich)

What this tells us is that stadiums are worthless once built – are not assets, but liabilities.

If they are fully owned (no debt) and receipts go to the stadium owners then they can be profitable, but only if the owner is also the user. Thus the only hope is for the Highlanders/Otago to own the stadium.

The DCC have demonstrated that all they can rack up is more debt, more bills and more losses.

[ends]

****

Fat chance of Otago Rugby taking over the stadium while it continues to be subsidised by DVML – the true cost of which is not made public. ORFU is now making profits but declines to pay back the ratepayers for the ‘simple things’, like black tie dinners held at the stadium in recent times. God knows what we’re paying for while Mr Davies sits atop his rugby goal post roost, clucking inanely, looking down at the pretty (untouchable) grass.

The prima donna approach is a False Economy, but not for dullards and professional rugby thugs.

Rip up the grass, put in articial turf, and let the Otago stadium be used by more codes / more sports people.

****

“It is a little naive to think because it is raining outside and there is water on the facilities, you can just come inside.” –Terry Davies

### ODT Online Thu, 8 Jun 2017
Unrealistic to have club sport at stadium – Davies
By Adrian Seconi
The chances of playing club sport under the roof at Forsyth Barr Stadium without an advanced booking are virtually nil, Dunedin Venues chief executive Terry Davies says. The issue came up in mid-April when the Dunedin City Council closed all its grounds due to poor weather. The Dunedin Rugby Metropolitan Council was reluctant to cancel round five of premier rugby and had hoped to play on the sand-based surfaces at Hancock Park and Kettle Park and possibly under the roof at Forsyth Barr Stadium. However, the stadium was ruled out because of scheduled maintenance. The issue came up again last month when grotty weather forced more cancellations, although premier rugby went ahead as planned. Davies said the idea club sport could be played at Forsyth Barr Stadium because of poor weather was naive. […] “The stadium was fundamentally built to deliver a real economic impact for the city. We have a number of major contracts in place with the professional rugby bodies … and there are other major events that we need to look after. On that basis we run quite a detailed maintenance schedule right through to the year it ensure we can deliver. The last thing we want to do is have a facility that is [not looking its best].”
Read more

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Advertisements

30 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Aurora Energy, Baloney, Business, Construction, Delta, Democracy, Design, Dunedin, DVL, DVML, Economics, Education, Electricity, Events, Finance, Geography, Highlanders, Hot air, Infrastructure, Media, Name, NZRU, ORFU, People, Perversion, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Queenstown Lakes, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Travesty

30 responses to “Stadiums, in particular the FB Aurora Delta Stadium at Dunedin

  1. Gurglars

    ve haf obligations unfortunately one isn’t paying off debt.

    the stadium is to be built for the good of the people of Dunedin, unfortunately that does not mean the people of Dunedin.

  2. Ray McKendry

    “The stadium was fundamentally built to deliver a real economic impact for the city.” So it did! To the negative impact of the city, which no one can deny.

  3. ”The stadium was fundamentally built to deliver a real economic impact for the city.
    So how is this a ‘charitable purpose’?

  4. Hype O'Thermia

    You’re not alone, Diane, in wondering. Esp when we hear the charitable trust is still going on accepting donation(s) and giving grant(s) to nameless “charity”.

  5. Elizabeth

    So the gambling profits from FB Aurora Delta Stadium @DUD aren’t for public knowledge or amusement. Why is that not a surprise, TAB, Terence et al.

    Oh wait. Gambling is LEGAL in this country yah toffee nosed anti-horse policy wonks.

    The TAB declined to release betting turnover figures for recent Highlanders matches at Forysth Barr stadium, saying it was not appropriate to do so.

    Fri, 9 Jun 2017
    ODT: Upset over loss of rates relief
    By Jonny Turner
    Two Dunedin racing clubs will be left more than  $21,000 out of pocket over what they feel are blatant double standards by the Dunedin City Council. Before the end of their current financial years this month, both the Forbury Park Trotting Club and the Otago Racing Club had previously enjoyed rates relief under the council’s policy, which allows it to be granted to community good, not-for-profit groups. However, a recent change effectively excluded the clubs from rates relief after the policy was amended to exclude horse and greyhound racing clubs and other organisations which are licensed as gaming machine venues. The change puts both venues at risk of not offering their facilities to dozens of community groups free of charge or at discounted rates. Both clubs have accused the council of a double standard as they believe there is significantly more social harm and money wagered on sporting events at the council-backed Forsyth Barr stadium than on their racedays. […] The clubs have also accused the council of back-flipping on an offer to present their cases for rates relief. Cont/

    █ Ring your counsel, Clubs.

  6. The stadium can do no wrong. Apparently.

  7. I used to question the fact that horse racing got the status of ‘charitable purpose’, I think, after the big lotteries came into fashion. Because horse racing lost so much of its support from people betting on the horses that it was in danger of going broke. So I thought it was a matter of self-interest lobbying from rich race-horse owners to their government connections to pull strings. However I don’t think that now. Many racehorses are owned in shares by people not that well-off and many people involved are there for the ‘love of the game’. It’s also a colourful spectacle for its audience and there’s nothing else like it. If I lived near a track, I think I would go sometimes. So I would hate to see horse racing driven into bankruptcy and out of existence. I think the DCC should support it with rates relief, especially since racing clubs’ venues are used for public benefit. Start a petition, racing community, and I’ll sign it.
    But as for the dogs, someone will have to first convince me that dog racing isn’t cruel.

  8. Hype O'Thermia

    Horsey people and Forbury provide stable manure and bags of horse poo which is a valuable resource for gardeners. Dunedin is big on “sustainable city” talk. Doesn’t seem to apply to subdividing first class soils into lifestyle blocks or coming close to banning bees from the city, but for a change how about some joined up thinking? Where do other – ahem – “charities” fit into the sustainability narrative?
    We can’t support everything that wants to paint itself charitable and let’s face it, some of that paintwork is looking helluva flaky these days.

  9. Elizabeth

    Speaking of which, DCC has notified the following application despite its food resilience ‘notion’ which is part of the council’s fatuous “Energy Plan” (see http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/your-council/council-documents/energy-plan/food-resilience)…. DCC speaketh with double tongue ???

    Comment received by email 8/06/2017 at 8:03pm:

    “Another market garden being subdivided up for housing. The DCC has done a great job so far in destroying the vegetable growing industry. Maybe there is a councillor out there who could stand up and try and save the jobs and the industry. Could start of by asking for pledges from the public. No don’t think so. No votes in that.”

    Non Complying Activity – 91 and 97 Formby Street – SUB-2017-43, LUC-2017-222 & LUC-2017-223
    Closes: 26/06/2017
    Notification of Application for a Resource Consent – Under Section 93(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991.
    The Dunedin City Council has received the following application for Resource Consent:

    Application description
    Council has received an application to establish a residential dwelling on 1.63ha at 91 Formby Street on Rural-zoned land.
    Council has also received an application to subdivide the land of Lot 2 SUB-2017-33 (part of 99 Formby Street) into nine lots, with land use to establish residential activity on each of the new lots. Lots 1 to 8 will be 1090m2 to 1550m2, fronting Formby Street and will be predominantly Residential 5-zoned land. Proposed Lot 9 will be a 2.6ha site of predominantly Rural-zoned land fronting Huntly Road and having access to Formby Street.
    The subject sites have mixed Rural and Residential 5 zoning in the Dunedin City District Plan. The general area is identified as being subject to land stability, seismic and flooding risks. The sites have potential soil contamination.
    The subdivision of Residential 5-zoned land into sites greater than 1000m2 is a restricted discretionary activity. Subdivision so as to create lots with less than 15.0ha of Rural-zoned land is a non-complying activity pursuant to Rule 18.5.2 of the Dunedin City District Plan. The establishment of new houses on sites with less than 15.0ha of Rural-zoned land is also a non-complying activity pursuant to Rule 6.5.7(i).

    The Proposed Second Generation District Plan (“the Proposed Plan”) was notified on 26 September 2016. Rules 16.7.4 (minimum site size for rural zones) and 16.9.5.5 (assessment of subdivision performance standard contraventions – minimum site size) were given immediate legal effect pursuant to section 86D of the Resource Management Act 1991 at the time of notification. Accordingly, the Proposed Plan rules also need to be considered alongside the Dunedin City District Plan rules.

    The sites have mixed Rural – Taieri Plains and Township and Settlement zoning in the Proposed Plan. There is no DCC reticulated wastewater service provided. The sites have high class soils, and the general area is identified as being at risk of flooding.

    Rule 16.7.4 specifies a minimum site size of 40.0ha for lots created by subdivision in the Rural – Taieri Plains zone. The proposed subdivision is therefore a non-complying activity pursuant to Rule 16.7.4.3. Minimum site size for Township and Settlement zone is 1000m2. The land use rules for the Rural and Residential zones are not yet in effect or operative.

    Overall, the proposed subdivision is considered to be a non-complying subdivision.

    Read more at http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/council-online/notified-resource-consents/current-consultation/non-complying-activity-sub-2017-43,-luc-2017-222-and-luc-2017-223

    [*emphasis by whatifdunedin]

    ****

    CC Otago Limited (5806367)
    Directors (1 of 1):
    Craig Richard HORNE – 5 Main South Road, East Taieri, Otago 9024
    http://www.companies.govt.nz/co/5806367

    • Farmer

      As you know I’m not a particular fan of the DCC and some of its decisions, but could someone explain to me how the DCC has ‘done a great job so far in destroying the vegetable growing industry’? Yes it is extremely sad to see the demise of the horticultural industry around the Outram area, but I fail to see how the DCC has any blame. It is all to do with supermarkets and purchasing trends of the general public. There are hundreds and hundreds of hectares of high class land suitable for vegetable growing on the Taieri and the reason it is not used for that purpose is simply commercial ‘free market’ choice of land use. There used to be 6 or 7 vege shops in the Outram area and now, with the demise of McArthurs, there will be none. And a lot of the reason has to do with the many folk reading this – when you buy your 99c lettuce in the supermarket, do you ever stop to think, after GST and the supermarkets 100% markup is taken off, then freight, how much the grower is actually getting? Supermarkets have driven down the returns to growers – to the benefit of consumers. There is now a fantastic array of veges on offer at very low prices, and I don’t hear any of you complaining about that. So don’t wring your hands when you see another ex hort block being subdivided. The industry around Outram was dominated by Chinese growers and all of the young generation, with the encouragement of their parents, have got university education and are doctors and dentists and lawyers, spread around the globe. I know this as a fact. The piece of land that is the subject of the consent application fits into this category exactly – older grower retired, family moved away, land put on the market.
      McArthurs was on the market as a going concern for months and interestingly, none of the hand wringers put their hand up to buy – and spend 7 days a week out in the weather dealing with all the crap that has to be dealt with, for an uncertain and not huge return.
      So remind me again how the DCC is to blame?

      • Farmer

        Further to my rant, I don’t want you to think that I am particularly in favour of what is happening, but just explaining why it has come to be. It is even interesting and sad to see what has happened to the Taieri dairy industry. Not that long ago there was a cheese factory on the Taieri, a milk bottling plant along Kaikorai Valley Road and the Cadbury factory. The cheese factory has long closed, the bottling plant also closed – all our bottled drinking milk comes from Canterbury, and Cadbury is soon to close. That will mean that EVERY litre of milk produced on the Taieri will be trucked off to other places (the closest is Stirling) for processing. Crazy I know – especially when there is a growing appreciation of where food is produced and food/miles. Maybe the penduleum will swing back someday? The farmers market seems to be well supported, but is only a small proportion of the total food consumed in the city.
        There also used to be the Burnside meat processing plant, and the DMBA abbotoir across the road – 1500 jobs……….
        Sometimes I wonder if the free market makes sense. But if you try and intervene and put incentives or subsidies in place, it all turns out worse in the end.

  10. Elizabeth

    High class soils of the Taieri are being fully plundered (mirror image to the same deformities we see at Wanaka) – urban sprawl by village idiots.

    meanwhile

    Dezeen Published on May 31, 2017
    Vertical farm designed to produce food amidst Shanghai’s skyscrapers
    The latest video in our Dezeen x MINI Living Initiative series investigates a design for a hydroponic vertical farm nestled among the skyscrapers of Shanghai. US architecture firm Sasaki Associates has designed the farm to produce food for the inhabitants of China’s largest city. The farm’s output will largely consist of leafy greens like kale, spinach and lettuce, which are staples of the local diet. The crops will be grown along a series of looped rails arranged side by side in a greenhouse, which will rotate to ensure even distribution of natural light from the sawtooth roof. The project aims to offer a space-saving alternative to traditional land-intensive farming, prompted by high land prices that encourage the development of vertical infrastructure. It will also features a variety of farming techniques suited to the urban environment, including floating greenhouses, algae farms and a vertical seed library.

    Read more at Dezeen: https://www.dezeen.com/?p=1090187

  11. Elizabeth

    Farmer, there is market economics and we have to work with that; there is district plan zoning and we have to work with that. We also have to work with the fact that the readership here is quite wide in interests and backgrounds. Some of us don’t have manicured hands, male or female. Others of us have long memories or access to those who have. It’s a very small district. Most of us have friends and friends of friends that know a lot. Some of us listen around the place. Overall, the picture gets clearer. Not all of it is pretty. Some of it is splendid. Depends on the weather.

    • Farmer

      Elizabeth, I have read your latest post twice and don’t have the faintest idea what you are saying!!

      • Elizabeth

        That’s all right, Farmer.

        Don’t forget some local producers supplying the Otago Farmers Market also supply the supermarkets. High quality produce has that ability.

      • Brian Miller

        Farmer. I could go into quite some detail and debate about your post here about the horticulture industry, and its issues real or imaginary. I have experience both as a grower and suppler to supermarkets, and also as an Otago representative on Hort NZ. It is not my intention at this time to debate on this site, the issues you raise with someone who hides behind a pseudonym.

        • Farmer

          Hi Brian,
          I too have been a grower and supermarket supplier – albeit in a minor scale. I stand by what I said. No grower – and I can name them all who have left the industry in the Outram area – left the industry because of the DCC.
          And don’t try and belittle me because I use a pseudonym.

      • Farmer: There is a problem because high class (or elite) soils are supposed to be legally protected for food production and too often local government does not do this. There may not be much demand to buy such land and use it for food production at the moment but once such soils are lost, they are usually lost forever. Local bodies should be upholding a sensible and necessary law. But they too often seem to think an exception won’t matter … then another exception and still another and so on.
        See below:
        http://www.productivity.govt.nz/sites/default/files/sub-urban-planning-094-new-zealand-society-of-soil-science-536Kb.pdf
        One chance
        Urban encroachment onto adjacent rural land has been seen to be an almost entirely one-way process. Once land has been used for the establishment of housing, commercial and industrial use, with the associated provision of communication and other public infrastructure, it is not cheap, not easy, and mostly not practical to reverse the process, remove the urban development, and return the land involved to its former actual or potential productive use. The Resource Management Act requires that the life supporting capacity of the soil be preserved for future generations.

        • Hype O'Thermia

          That’s it, Diane. Just because we don’t value it highly today (water, high class soils Colin McCahon’s paintings for most of his lifetime) isn’t a good reason for destroying it, making it unavailable for future people.
          Climate change, sustainability, fuel miles… all that talk, all those other restrictions eg no offshore drilling (!), at the same time the opposite is happening with our nearest resources and most scarce worldwide. Consistent would be nice for a change.

        • Farmer

          Diane
          I agree mostly with what you say. I’m a farmer and owe my livelihood to the land. I love seeing land being farmed responsibly and sustainably and producing at a high level – no matter what is being produced from it. And hate seeing urban sprawl devouring good productive land.
          The only reason I offered an opinion on this thread is that I read a comment (above)
          “Another market garden being subdivided up for housing. The DCC has done a great job so far in destroying the vegetable growing industry.”
          I was merely pointing out that it is not the DCC that has destroyed the local vegetable growing industry. As I said there are hundreds of hectares of land on the Taieri where vegetables could be grown and the reason they are not has nothing to do with the DCC.
          As I have also said, I’m not a particular fan of the DCC and disagree with a lot of what they do. But I hate it when they get blamed for everything. Just like I hate it when the Govt of the day get blamed for everything that happens, when in reality there may be a multitude of factors at play. I’m sure you have all overheard conversations ….’the bloody idiots in Wellington did such and such, they wouldn’t have a clue….’.
          By all means disagree and fight and complain, but stick to the facts and pick your fight.

        • Elizabeth

          Farmer, do you know the zoning precedent set by ex Cr Sydney Brown (while he was councillor and private developer) and what the consequences have been?

        • Elizabeth

          Another thing, Farmer. Diane makes an honest effort to offer views here, so do you – please don’t run at her with “stick to the facts and pick your fight”.

          When all is said and done Diane’s point about the RMA and the protection of high class soils is exactly why there is a problem with DCC decision making which allows the carve up of highly productive land, yes, stupidly, for housing on a flood plain. The council even managed to have ratepayers pay for drainage for a private subdivision…. the recent history would make your hair stand on end. Did I mention a pony club.

        • Farmer

          Diane, so moving the discussion along, we all want our local economy to grow and prosper and for our kids to get jobs and marry and maybe build a new home for themselves. In short, there will be a need for land for future housing growth. So where should it be? Not on the lower Taieri I agree. Should Dunedin be encouaged to expand out the peninsula a bit? Or towards Mt Cargill? Or along the south coast? We can all say what shouldn’t happen, but realistically there will be a need for more housing land. So where should it go do you think?

        • Elizabeth

          Farmer, the 2GP provides for more housing by increasing maximum building height (modestly) in the residential zone – it’s been publicly workshopped via the Spatial Plan to push intensification (aka densification) via the second generation district plan – sprawl isn’t encouraged by anyone much, the new build quarter-acre pavlova paradise is no longer wise or affordable for many. The cost of infrastructure services and support to housing sprawl is too high – although some will argue the opposite depending on location, demographics, and scale of economies.

        • Hype O'Thermia

          Farmer, “I was merely pointing out that it is not the DCC that has destroyed the local vegetable growing industry.”
          Fair point, the supermarkets and their stranglehold contracts, and centralised supply so food from eg here is sent on a journey to Chch then back, a la NZPost’s “improved service” and all sorts of non-DCC factors “destroyed the local vegetable growing industry.”
          But what the DCC did was rule out opportunity in perpetuity – well, within the reasonably foreseeable future – to grow whatever becomes a good earner on that quality soil, in this climate when it gets warmer, wetter, colder, drier….. because everything changes, demand for produce included. Who’d have thought people would get this consciousness of Fresh, and Local, and Organic, back in the days when convenience was a modern miracle and Birdseye Frozen Peas were sheer bliss compared with the work of shelling peas before dinner, or greyish tinned peas?

          It’s like over-fishing the seas and then suddenly – oops, no fish for dinner. Destroying resources is dumb it’s worse than dumb, IMO it should be a crime and the perps fined and made to spend the rest of their lives remediating.

  12. Hype O'Thermia

    It has always been my contention that “real-sounding” or real names or pseudonyms are of buggerall relevance, it’s the quality of the evidence that counts not the identity of the person who wrote it.
    The group that titled itself “Wise Response” is a case in point – their first move is to hit over the head people who express other viewpoints with the word “Wise” – implication of superiority. Then the spokespeople are all known for expertise in one field or another, which again carries the implication that they are equally expert in all fields they care to engage in.

    I know a few of the people who contribute to WhatIf, know them outside this blog. Others – well, they contribute using names that sound like real names, but I don’t know them so they might as well sign themselves Hairy MacAroon for all the difference it makes to me, I judge their contributions by what I see as wisdom or otherwise *in those contributions*.
    Farmer appears to know a fair bit about what he/she writes.
    He/she may currently be a fashion model in Prague called Veloute… so what?
    I don’t think that’s the important point when it comes to discussing local land use and the marketing of primary produce.

  13. Gurglars

    Very profound Hairy.

  14. Peter

    ‘Revelling in the big events’ is the title of today’s ODT. June 15, 2017.
    Among other things, aside from their usual stadium idolatory, it refers to a push in Christchurch for a covered stadium.
    Get this gem. ‘Christchurch ratepayers will have to realise, however, that covered stadiums are hugely expensive, and exponentially so as capacity increases. Dunedin and the South must be hoping that cost is prohibitive and the cover on Christchurch’s stadium is a step too far.’
    Well, well well.
    There is also a dig at the anticipated push line for a covered stadium for it to be ‘multipurpose-where have we heard that before?’ Huh?
    The ODT is obviously keen to use the anti ratepayer funded stadium line when it suits for Christchurch. It seems they are fair shitting themselves re the prospect of a covered stadium in Christchurch because it will make our own infrequently used one here even more useless. (Get a job up there, Terry, before it is too late, and join Darren Burden.)
    Interestingly they talk about ‘ratepayers’ paying for the Christchurch stadium. No reference to any private funding by wealthy benefactors or the bloody bludgers in the rugby unions.
    Gee, they are funny duffers at the ODT.

    • Here’s an interesting news report on the Christchurch stadium proposal
      http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/business/the-rebuild/93363777/rugby-bosses-would-accept-covered-christchurch-arena-smaller-than-lancaster-park–riach
      Compares the capacity of NZ’s present stadiums. Dunedin’s is sure big for the population who have to pay for it.
      Interesting to me that the Christchurch proposal is being investigated by a government-appointed trust, rather than a self-appointed one, as in Dunedin’s case, with most, if not all, Dunedin trustees arguably having had interests way beyond just the public good. Sounds an improved process but then I wonder who are the government appointees to the Christchurch Stadium Trust (‘charitable’, of course). I am sure rugby will be well represented.
      Can’t help feeling we will see another ‘failure of democracy’ and it will be the Christchurch ratepayers who end up paying for other people’s dreams, fun and business interests this time.

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