Tuesday, November 07, 2006


In an article from NZRugby world Eden Park’s Rob Fisher says a waterfront stadium is an expensive and high-risk proposition that cannot be completed in time for the Rugby World Cup.

Mr Fisher released a report prepared for Eden Park by quantity surveyors WT Partnership, which said a 60,000-seat waterfront stadium would cost between $612 million and $767 million, excluding land and relocation costs of up to $150 million.

“Our advisers believe that total costs for the waterfront will be more than double that for Eden Park. You’ve also got to factor in substantial additional costs to develop infrastructure such as Britomart and Quay Street, as well as sewerage, stormwater and drainage systems, to meet the demands of a 60,000 seat stadium. It looks like an open chequebook.”

Mr Fisher said a waterfront stadium would not provide any additional economic benefit for Auckland or New Zealand, compared to Eden Park.

A report by Eden Park’s economic consultants, Horwath Asia Pacific, says a waterfront stadium would not increase the estimated $240 million boost to the Auckland economy from the Rugby World Cup, and was "highly unlikely" to produce greater long-term economic benefits than a redeveloped Eden Park.

“The numbers just don’t stack up. Eden Park can achieve the same economic benefits for far less investment – and our business case, developed in conjunction with PricewaterhouseCoopers, demonstrates that we can continue to operate sustainably after the Rugby World Cup, without any need for ongoing ratepayer subsidisation.”

I feel strongly that a waterfront stadium will be a mistake. Save the extra money and develop an adequate transport system to get around Auckland and include a station at Eden Park. This will enable supporters to get to the city centre after the game to celebrate (or to drown their sorrows). Keep the iconic Eden Park and save our money!

No comments: